Delhi HC grants bail to Sharjeel Imam in sedition case

While hearing his appeal, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said, “Allowed”.

Meanwhile, Imam’s bail plea in the police’s ‘larger conspiracy’ case pertaining to the 2020 riots is pending before the High Court. He will remain in jail.

Imam had submitted that the trial court had denied him bail even though he had undergone more than half of the maximum sentence that can be awarded to him in case of a conviction. He claimed he was entitled to be released on bail as he had been in custody for four years and the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is seven years if convicted.

Police opposed Imam’s plea and said he cannot seek bail under Section 436A CrPC. As per Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a person can be released from custody if he has spent more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence.

Imam was booked for sedition by police in 2020 for allegedly making inflammatory speeches at AMU and JMI concerning the CAA. Later, Section 13 of the UAPA was invoked against him under which the maximum punishment prescribed is seven years. He has been in judicial custody since January 28, 2020.

The trial court in its February 17 order had said, “… although the applicant (Imam) did not ask anybody to pick the weapons and kill the people, but his speeches and activities mobilised the public which disrupted the city and might be the main reason in (the) outbreak of the riots. Further, through inflammatory speeches and social media, the applicant skillfully manipulated the real facts and incited the public to create havoc in the city. Further, words used by the applicant in his different speeches were so powerful that they captured the mind of the people of a particular community and incited them to take part in the disruptive activities which finally resulted in the riots.”

The trial court had also taken note of the chargesheet containing allegations against Imam. As per the chargesheet, and in the context of CAA/NRC, the Imam had delivered different speeches – one at Jamia on December 13, 2019, at AMU on January 16, 2020, at Asansol on January 22, 2020, and at Chakband on January 23, 2020 — “thereby inciting the public which ultimately triggered the communal riots in different parts of Delhi”.

“It is noted that the incidents or riots triggered on 13.12.2019 at Jamia, on 15.12.2019 at New Friends Colony, on 16.12.2019 at Dayal Pur, on 17.12.2019 at Seelampur and Jafrabad and on 20.12.2019 at Seemapuri and Nand Nagri. The contents of the speeches clearly show that the applicant incited the public to do chakka jams and block the cities. Particularly, in the speech dated 16.01.2020 delivered at AMU, the applicant (Imam) said that if a particular number of people are organised, the Northeast part of the country can be permanently or temporarily cut,” the trial court had said.

The trial court also said while it cannot take into consideration Section 124A of the IPC,“… if the acts and actions of the applicant (Imam) are considered, in a normal dictionary meaning, they can be termed as seditious”.