Why should Sharjeel Imam not get bail: Delhi high court pulls up local court

Saying that police will “have to really persuade [us] as to why bail should not be granted to Imam”, justice Mridul pointed out that it the issue becomes different when an accused is convicted and sentenced, but there must be compelling reasons to keep someone in pre-conviction detention

Questioning the denial of bail to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam by a trial court for alleged provocative speeches during the anti-CAA protests, the Delhi high court on Wednesday said that the lower court judge did not deal with the relevant considerations that must be taken into account for granting or refusing release.

The alleged speeches for which Imam was arrested were made in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar area on December 13, 2019, and at the Aligarh Muslim University on January 16, 2020.

“He (the trial court judge) has dealt with nothing. All these offences are less than seven years (punishment). We are asking you (police) why he should not be enlarged on bail? Is he at flight risk? Will he tamper with evidence? Who are the witnesses?” a bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.

When special public prosecutor Amit Prasad Prasad, appearing for Delhi Police, told the court that Imam has also been charged with Section 124A (punishment for sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, which entails for life imprisonment, the court said that sedition requires specific calls for violence, and that this issue has been dealt with by constitutional courts long ago.

“We actually don’t want to reinvent the wheel here. It is very clear… The incitement has to be of violence. There has to be a conscious act promoting violence. You examine it,” the bench said.

Saying that police will “have to really persuade [us] as to why bail should not be granted to Imam”, justice Mridul pointed out that it the issue becomes different when an accused is convicted and sentenced, but there must be compelling reasons to keep someone in pre-conviction detention.

Imam, through his counsel, moved the high court challenging an order of January 24 by which the trial court dismissed his bail plea and framed charges against him for alleged provocative speeches delivered during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, or CAA, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam.

The alleged speeches for which Imam was arrested were made in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar area on December 13, 2019, and at the Aligarh Muslim University on January 16, 2020. He has been in judicial custody since January 28, 2020.

On January 24, additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat framed charges under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against Imam for a speech in which he allegedly spoke about cutting off Assam and the rest of the North-East from India. The court also slapped sedition charges against him, along with other sections of the IPC.

During the proceedings on Wednesday, advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, representing Imam, contended that just three lines have been taken from Imam’s speech in the FIR, and it is being made to believe that he is inciting violence.

Mir also said that Imam has been in custody for the last 25 months, and there is no likelihood of trial getting over soon as there are more than 170 witnesses to be examined and trial has not even started.

The bench issued notice to the police and asked it to file a reply within 10 days. The matter will next be heard on March 24.

Delhi Police filed a charge sheet against Imam alleging that he allegedly gave speeches inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Union government, and instigated people leading to the violence in December 2019 in Jamia University.

This case was registered on January 25, 2020, simultaneously with four other FIRs across multiple states for the same speeches attributed to him.

Imam said in his bail plea that the FIR was originally registered for offences punishable under sections 124A (punishment for sedition) 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) of the IPC and later Section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities) of UAPA was added.

“In the garb of CAA, he (Imam) exhorted people of a particular community to block highways leading to major cities and resort to ‘chakka jaam’. Also, in the name of opposing CAA, he openly threatened to cut off Assam and other Northeastern states from the rest of the country,” the Delhi Police charge sheet said.

Imam is also accused of being the “mastermind” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured - a charge that he has strongly denied.