3 min readNew DelhiFeb 18, 2024 08:34 AM IST
First published on: Feb 18, 2024 at 02:39 AM IST
Noting that “although the applicant did not ask anybody to pick weapons and kill the people but his speeches and activities mobilised the public which disrupted the city and might be the main reason in outbreak of the riots,” a Delhi court on Saturday denied bail to Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 riots case involving allegations of sedition.
The court further noted that the contents of Imam’s anti-CAA speeches given at Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia, and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), could be termed “seditious” in the “dictionary meaning”.
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.
Sharjeel Imam was booked for sedition by Delhi Police in 2020 for allegedly making inflammatory speeches at AMU against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).. (File Photo) 
Share
