‘Speeches mobilised the public’: Delhi court denies bail to Sharjeel Imam

The court stated that the accused “skillfully manipulated the real facts and incited the public in order to create a havoc in the city”, capturing the minds of “a particular community” and inciting them to engage in disruptive activities.

“…. if the acts and actions of the applicant are considered, in a normal dictionary meaning, they can be termed as seditious,” held Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts.

Imam was booked for sedition by Delhi Police in 2020 for allegedly making inflammatory speeches at AMU against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Later, Section 13 of the UAPA was invoked against him. He has been in judicial custody since January 28, 2020. His counsels Ibrahim Ahmad and Talib Mustafa argued in court that after the Delhi High Court in 2022 stayed the trial in the sedition case against the accused, only four offences remained against him.

Mustafa argued that the charges against Imam which attract the maximum punishment are those of the offences allegedly committed under the UAPA. He further argued in his plea that the accused was entitled to be released on statutory bail as per Section 436 of the CrPC as he had undergone half of the maximum seven years of punishment prescribed under Section 13 of UAPA.

The stay on Imam’s sedition trial was a point of contention during the arguments on his bail plea. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad argued that the stay on 124A (sedition) for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment was temporary and it can’t be overlooked for the purpose of granting bail. The SPP also argued that the court is allowed to dismiss the bail taking into account the gravity of the offence.

Mustafa, however, argued that the stay was not temporary and the Supreme Court order clearly stated that there shall be no use of the provision of Sedition for any purpose till the constitutional challenge is decided by the court.

It was also argued by Imam’s counsel that the provision of bail under Section 436A was mandatory, and that the only discretion that the court could exercise was to see if the delay in trial can be attributed to the accused.

The court, while rejecting the first claim of the SPP, stated that the accused could be kept in further detention under “exceptional circumstances”.

The court noted: “The court is not in agreement with the learned SPP that at this time, while considering the bail application under section 436A Cr.P.C., the court can consider the period of imprisonment as prescribed for the offence under section 124A IPC i.e. imprisonment for life.”
However, the court pointed out that in this case, the circumstances were not normal and were indeed, exceptional.