NE Delhi riots: Court rejects JNU student Sharjeel Imam’s interim bail plea

Imam’s lawyer, Ibrahim, had sought interim bail considering the fact that the Supreme Court ordered that all pending trials in sedition cases be kept in abeyance till its constitutional validity is decided

Special Public Prosecutor as Amit Prasad opposed Sharjeel's bail plea by stating that there is no direction of the Supreme Court that all persons accused of the offence under sedition should be released on interim bail pending disposal of constitutional challenges to the section.(Express File Photo)

A Delhi court on Saturday rejected the interim bail application of JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA case lodged in connection with the Northeast Delhi riots.

Imam’s lawyer, Ibrahim, had sought interim bail considering the fact that the Supreme Court ordered that all pending trials in sedition cases be kept in abeyance till its constitutional validity is decided. He argued that Imam’s previous bail was rejected because of limitations in granting bail in a sedition case, however, in light of the Supreme Court directions, the hindrances raised in the previous bail order where obviated.

Explained | Why Supreme Court’s order virtually stalls operation of sedition law

Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad opposed his bail plea by stating that there is no direction of the Supreme Court that all persons accused of the offence under sedition should be released on interim bail pending disposal of constitutional challenges to the section.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat, while dismissing Imam’s plea observed that there can only be one bail order on the merits of the case and it “cannot again pass an order on the merits that too in an interim bail application”.

“Otherwise, by this logic, there can be two bail orders on merits of the case at the same time passed by this court. The merits of the case cannot be agitated again in an interim bail application in view of the disposal of the previous bail application and orders on charge both dated 24.01.2022,” the court said.

The court also said the defence counsel’s plea that Section 13 of UAPA is not made out in the present case is a completely misplaced argument

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram