Delhi HC tells trial court to consider relief to Sharjeel Imam’s under Sec 436A

Section 436-A mandates that when a person before the conclusion of trial has undergone an imprisonment of up to one-half of the maximum sentence specified for the offence alleged against him, he can be released by court on bail.

Following the Supreme Court’s order on keeping sedition cases in abeyance, the Delhi high court has asked a trial court to first consider former JNU student Sharjeel Imam’s application seeking relief under Section 436-A CrPC on the ground that he has remained in custody for 31 months in a 2019 sedition FIR.

(HT Photo)

Section 436-A mandates that when a person before the conclusion of trial has undergone an imprisonment of up to one-half of the maximum sentence specified for the offence alleged against him, he can be released by court on bail.

Imam has argued that since he has been incarcerated for about 31 months after being arrested in February 2020, he is entitled for the benefit of being released - having undergone detention for more than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment under Section 153A (promoting enmity among religious groups) that entails a maximum imprisonment of three years.

The case against Imam registered at the New Friends Colony (NFC) Police station pertains to a speech he had delivered at Jamia Millia Islamia in 2019.

On Monday (September 26), while permitting him to withdraw his application for regular bail in a 2019 sedition case, justice Anoop Mendiratta in an order of September 26, asked the trial court to also take into consideration Supreme Court’s order of keeping the offence of sedition in abeyance, while taking a decision on application for default bail.

Appearing for Imam, his counsel Ahmad Ibrahim told the judge that the trial court, while dismissing his bail plea, had only made observations against him with respect to offences under Section 153A and 124A (sedition) and opined that no case was made out under other offences.

The counsel argued that the only offence which now warrants consideration of the trial court during the hearing of bail plea is Section 153A as offence of sedition has been kept abeyance.

He sought a clarification that the pendency of his bail plea before high court should not come in the way of deciding his application under 436A CrPC before the trial court.

On the other hand, special public prosecutor Amit Prasad told the court that Imam’s bail plea pending before High Court may be withdrawn in entirety, as it may not be appropriate to consider the application under Section 436A CrPC in a piecemeal with reference to Section 153A of IPC.