The Delhi High judge recently observed that the trial judge, in a sedition and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case, refused to grant statutory bail to activist Sharjeel Imam due to being influenced by the seriousness of the accusations made against him.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, said that the trial court did not have any evidence or reason to prevent Imam from obtaining relief under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which pertains to statutory bail.
The High Court stated, “Learned Trial Court got swayed by the enormity of the allegations, observing that he had made inflammatory speeches which resulted in riots, the bail was declined… In the case in hand, we do not find any justifiable reason which could have compelled the Court from not granting the relief… we have no hesitation in holding that there was, actually speaking, nothing on record which could have disentitled the accused from seeking relief under Section 436-A CrPC,” .
In its May 29 judgement, the Court made these remarks while granted statutory release to Imam. The case against him was launched for allegedly giving incendiary comments at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and in Delhi’s Jamia neighborhood.
The Bench cited a previous court decision and said that the gravity of the charges against an accused cannot be sufficient grounds to deny the granting of statutory bail.
The High Court observed , “If any such accused has merely attempted to avail legal remedies, it cannot be taken as an adverse conduct, disentitling him seeking release. accused has merely attempted to avail legal remedies, it cannot be taken as an adverse conduct, disentitling him seeking release,” .
Imam filed a petition with the High Court challenging the decision of the trial court to refuse him bail in the sedition case.
He said that he had already served a four-year prison term, which is less than the maximum penalty of seven years, and so he qualifies for statutory bail.
He said that the Supreme Court of India has temporarily suspended the charge of sedition, and the clauses of the UAPA that have been used against him do not entail a term more than seven years.
The trial court, in a ruling on February 17, refused to grant bail to Imam. The court determined that while Imam’s speeches and actions opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) did not explicitly incite violence or encourage harm towards others, they did effectively rally the public, which could be seen as a significant factor contributing to the occurrence of the Delhi riots.
According to Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, Imam’s statements were very influential and inspired individuals from a certain group to engage in disruptive actions, leading to rioting.
Imam appealed against the trial court’s decisions to the High Court, which granted his request on May 29.
Imam is incarcerated since he is also implicated in the broader conspiracy case linked to the Delhi riots.
Appearing for Sharjeel Imam were advocates Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, Raksha Agarwal, Kartik Venu, Shaurca Tyagi, and Ayesha Zaidi.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rajat Nair and advocate Dhruv Pande represented the Delhi Police.