In Ajeet Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (BAIL APPLN. 3808/2026, decided 24 September 2026), Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the High Court of Delhi dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS as not maintainable. The FIR, registered at PS North Avenue on a complaint about a social media video, invoked several clauses of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with provisions of the IT Act and the BNS. The decision is a current illustration of how narrow the window is when Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the SC/ST Act are in play.
The case in one view
| Case | Ajeet Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., BAIL APPLN. 3808/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Saurabh Banerjee J |
| Decided | 24 September 2026 (reserved 16 September 2026) |
| Provisions | Sections 3, 18 and 18A(2), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 67 IT Act; Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) BNS; Section 482 BNSS |
| Outcome | Anticipatory bail application dismissed as not maintainable |
The allegations
The FIR was registered on the complaint of a political party’s Delhi unit president, alleging that the applicant posted a video on social media — with a substantial view count by the time of registration — containing caste-based abuse directed at a sitting Member of Parliament and remarks concerning Dr B.R. Ambedkar and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. The FIR invoked Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the BNS.
The legal gate: Sections 18 and 18A
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act excludes the application of the anticipatory bail provision to offences under the Act; Section 18A(2), inserted in 2018, reinforces that exclusion notwithstanding any judgment, direction or order. The Supreme Court’s decisions — including the 2024 ruling in Shajan Skaria and the 2025 ruling in Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, both relied upon in this judgment — preserve a single, narrow exception: if, on a prima facie reading, the FIR discloses no offence under the Act, the bar does not bite.
How the test was applied
The court did not stop at the FIR’s recitals: it viewed the video in chambers and read the transcript. Two concessions framed the analysis — the applicant is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, and the video was published within public view. On the content, the court found the statements to be explicit caste references rather than stray or ambiguous remarks, holding that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) were prima facie made out. The plea that the remarks were a reaction to provocation failed: the provocation was not attributed to the complainant’s side, and there had been no apology or retraction. Having found two clauses prima facie attracted, the court did not separately examine the remaining provisions — the bar had already closed the door.
What practitioners should take from it
The decision sits alongside the established position that where the bar operates, the remedy lies in the ordinary criminal process — cooperation with the investigation and, if arrested, a regular bail application in which the merits receive full consideration. For anyone facing an SC/ST Act allegation in Delhi, the practical lesson is to assess the FIR’s ingredients clause by clause before investing in a pre-arrest strategy the statute may not permit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is anticipatory bail completely barred in SC/ST Act cases?
Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the SC/ST Act exclude the anticipatory bail remedy for offences under the Act. The Supreme Court has carved out one narrow safety valve, applied in this judgment: where a prima facie reading of the FIR discloses no offence under the Act at all, the bar does not operate. The inquiry stops at the face of the allegations — the court cannot conduct a mini-trial at that stage.
How did the court assess whether an offence was prima facie made out?
The court viewed the video in chambers and read its transcript. It found that the statements, read in context, contained explicit caste-based references rather than stray remarks, and that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) — intentional insult and abuse by caste name within public view — were prima facie disclosed. Counsel accepted that the applicant did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe and that the video was within public view.
Did the plea of provocation help?
No. The argument that the applicant had been provoked by online content was rejected, the court noting that the alleged provocation did not come from the named individual and that there had been no apology or retraction. Once some Section 3 offences were prima facie made out, the court did not need to examine every remaining provision.
What follows from a dismissal like this?
Where the statutory bar applies, the anticipatory bail application fails on maintainability — no conditions are imposed because no relief is granted. The person apprehending arrest must work within the remedies that remain, including regular bail after arrest, where the merits are examined afresh. Observations at this stage are confined to the application.