Sharjeel Imam bail plea: Court raps special public prosecutor, says his absence causing delay
Flagging the absence of SPP Amit Prasad, the judge added that the prosecution was not taking the case seriously.
2 min read
Sharjeel Imam, booked in 2020 under sections of the UAPA, had in August moved court seeking statutory bail for completing half of the maximum sentence of seven years for the offences committed by him. (Express File Photo)A Delhi court Saturday pulled up the Special Public Prosecutor for his regular absence in the case regarding the bail plea of Sharjeel Imam, charged under the UAPA in the Northeast Delhi riots ‘larger conspiracy’ case.
“It has been observed by the court that in the riots matter, on a regular basis, proxy counsel for Special Public Prosecutor are seeking multiple passovers during the day as they are already engaged in other courts. This has been a trend almost on a regular basis over the last few days. Even witnesses in riots matters have been discharged unexamined due to the absence of Ld. SPP,” said Judge Amitabh Rawat in the order, noting the SPP’s regular absence was leading to derailment of the case.
Flagging the absence of SPP Amit Prasad, the judge added that the prosecution was not taking the case seriously.
Imam, booked in 2020 under sections of the UAPA, had in August moved court seeking statutory bail for completing half of the maximum sentence of seven years for the offences committed by him.
He was also booked for sedition by the Delhi Police’s Special Branch in 2020 for allegedly making inflammatory speeches at Aligarh Muslim University against CAA. Later, Section 13 of the UAPA was invoked against him.
Imam, who has been in judicial custody since January 28, 2020, argued in his bail plea that he is entitled to be released on statutory bail as he has undergone half of the maximum 7 years of punishment prescribed under UAPA Section 13.
Counsel Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim, representing Imam, while arguing on the bail, had said that after the stay of the trial in the sedition charges against Imam by the Delhi High Court via a 2022 order, the charges against him which attracted the maximum punishment are now those of the UAPA.
SPP Prasad had opposed the bail plea, citing CrPc Section 31, which is titled ‘sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial’. Prasad argued that when multiple offences are committed, they can’t be overlapped. He further said the sum of the punishments (which was 16 years) should be looked at when deciding Imam’s bail plea.
You May Like
