NEWS PRISM, DELHI BUREAU
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has granted bail to activist Sharjeel Imam in a case related to alleged inflammatory speeches made by him during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019. The ruling comes nearly four-and-a-half years after Imam was arrested on sedition charges.
Imam, a former research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), was arrested in January 2020 after Delhi Police registered a sedition case against him. The charges stemmed from his remarks, which allegedly called for cutting off the Northeast from the rest of India, made during the CAA protests. The student activist faced multiple cases in several states, including Delhi, Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, for his alleged inflammatory speeches at events in Jamia Millia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University.
In Wednesday’s hearing, a division bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain granted statutory bail to Imam in the sedition and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case. The court considered that Imam had already spent over four years in custody, exceeding half of the maximum seven-year sentence he could receive if convicted.
During the hearings, Imam’s legal team, comprising advocates Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim, argued that their client was entitled to statutory bail as he had undergone incarceration for a significant period. However, the prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair, opposed the bail plea, contending that Imam’s case fell within the purview of Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for extended pre-trial detention in exceptional circumstances.
Ultimately, after considering the chronology of events, including the framing of charges and examination of witnesses, the High Court granted Imam statutory bail in the case related to his speeches at AMU and Jamia. The statutory bail, known as default bail, is a right of accused to get bail if the police fail to finish their probe against him or her within a given period of judicial custody.
It is important to note that Imam will remain in custody due to his involvement in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, which also includes UAPA charges.
The trial court had previously denied Imam bail in February, asserting that his speeches and activities had “mobilized the public,” potentially contributing to the outbreak of the 2020 riots. The court had stated that although Imam did not explicitly call for violence, his speeches “skillfully manipulated the real facts and incited the public in order to create havoc in the city.”
Imam’s case has garnered significant attention, as it touches upon the broader debates surrounding freedom of speech, dissent, and the application of stringent laws like sedition and UAPA. His legal battles will continue as the High Court’s granted him statutory bail in one of the cases while he has to wait for long court proceedings for getting out of the jail in other cases.
Reacting on his bail, senior journalist Saurav Das writes on his X, “Sorry but are we supposed to celebrate the Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Sharjeel Imam because he has already spent half of possible prison time already as an undertrial? No. The order is in fact a scathing indictment and a shameful reflection of the courts that have failed to see through the flimsy charges against him (and the other 2020 Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” accused) for more than 3-4 years now. A so-called “independent and fair judicial system” like this should rather die and be reborn in o actually fulfil its mandate of dispensing fair justice without fear or favour. Cases like Imam’s are a blot on our judiciary. Nothing to celebrate.”
Earlier this year, in its annual report on religious freedom, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Commissioner David Curry demands, “Even after more than four years since the CAA’s introduction, activists like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, and numerous others remain unjustly detained under the UAPA for peacefully protesting.”
The USCIRF has urged the U.S. government to collaborate with Indian authorities to release arbitrarily detained human rights advocates advocating for religious minorities.