© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the Delhi Police’s response in a bail plea moved by Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 riots case involving allegations of sedition. A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain issued a notice to the police asking them to file their response and listed the matter on April 30.
Imam’s counsel Talib Mustaffa submitted that the trial court had denied Imam bail even though he has undergone more than half of the maximum sentence that can be awarded to him in case of a conviction.
Imam was booked for sedition by Delhi Police in 2020 for allegedly making inflammatory speeches at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia with respect to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Later, Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA was invoked against him under which the maximum punishment prescribed is seven years. He has been in judicial custody since January 28, 2020.
On February 17, the trial court had denied Imam’s bail plea while observing that the contents of Imam’s anti-CAA speeches given at Jamia Millia Islamia and AMU, could be termed “seditious” in the “dictionary meaning”. The trial court had noted, “Although the applicant did not ask anybody to pick weapons and kill the people, his speeches and activities mobilised the public which disrupted the city and might be the main reason for the outbreak of the riots”.
The trial court had stated that Imam had “skillfully manipulated the real facts and incited the public in order to create havoc in the city”, capturing the minds of “a particular community” and inciting them to engage in disruptive activities. The court had said that while it cannot take into consideration section 124A of the IPC,“… if the acts and actions of the applicant are considered, in a normal dictionary meaning, they can be termed as seditious”.
Imam had argued before the trial court he was entitled to be released on statutory bail as he had been in custody for four years and the maximum sentence for the offence under UAPA Section 13 is seven years if convicted. As per section 436-A of the CrPC, a person can be released from custody if he has spent more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence.
