The Delhi High Court on March 9 issued notice to the Delhi Police on a fresh bail plea filed by JNU student Sharjeel Imam in a case related to alleged instigating speeches against the Government on the issue of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).
A Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta asked the Delhi Police Crime Branch to file its reply on Mr. Imam’s plea while listing it for further hearing on March 24.
The present case relates to an FIR registered against Mr. Imam where it mention two speeches delivered by him — the first one at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi on December 13, 2019 and the second at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) on December 16, 2019.
The FIR in Delhi was registered on January 25, 2020, but Mr. Imam also faces four other FIRs across multiple States for the same speeches attributed to him. In his plea before the high court, filed through advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, Mr. Imam has challenged a January 24 order of a trial court in New Delhi rejecting his bail plea in the FIR.
While hearing Mr. Imam’s bail plea, the high court hinted that it was inclined to grant bail to the final year of Ph.D. student in the current case. The high court said that the trial court, while denying bail to Mr. Imam, has not gone into relevant considerations.
“He [the trial court] has dealt with nothing. All these offences are less than seven years. We are asking you [the police] why he [Imam] should not be enlarged on bail? Is he a flight risk? Will he tamper with evidence? Who are the witnesses?” the Bench queried.
The public prosecutor argued that the charges faced by Mr. Imam also include sedition which is punishable with life imprisonment.
But the Bench said that the issue relating to sedition has been death with by court long back. “The incitement has to be of violence. There has to be a conscious act promoting violence. You examine it,” the Bench said.
The high court further said that in pre-conviction detention, courts should have compelling reasons to detain a person. “We don’t know for how long the trial will go on,” the Bench said.
It also asked the Mr. Imam’s counsel how it will be checked that Mr. Imam does not indulge in the act of giving such speech again if he is released on bail noting that “it was not a solitary instance, it was repeated”.
Mr. Imam’s counsel said his client was in custody since his arrest from his hometown of Jehanabad, Bihar on January 28, 2020. The counsel contended that the trial was going to take a long time as there are more than 170 witnesses and the trial has not even started yet.
The investigating agency has filed the charge sheet against Imam in the present case on July 25, 2020, for offences punishable under Sections 124A, 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race), 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of IPC and later Section 13 of UAPA was added.
“In the instant case, Section 13 UAPA, which has been invoked against the appellant [Imam], does not attach with itself the stringent provision of bail as contained in section 43D (5) of UAPA,” Mr. Imam’s plea said.
“Further, the bail application of the appellant was essentially dismissed for having found prima facie case under Section 124A IPC, which is an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Court having unfettered powers under section 439 to grant an accused regular bail,” the plea added.