NEW DELHI: Days after student activist Umar Khalid was acquitted of riot-related charges, JNU student and activist Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday approached SC seeking to expunge observations made by the Delhi High Court regarding Imam while denying bail to Umar Khalid in a riot conspiracy case.
The Delhi HC while denying bail to Khalid on October 18 had said that Khalid was constantly in touch with Sharjeel Imam who was arguably ‘at the head of the conspiracy’.The HC had also referred to Sharjeel Imam as the main conspirator in one of its paras.
The HC has said Khalid was in constant touch with other co-accused persons, including Sharjeel Imam, who arguably was at the head of the conspiracy. Sharjeel has also sought to expunge the HC’s observation wherein it had said that it found it difficult in accepting contention that Khalid and Imam had never spoken to each other.
Imam has also sought to expunge the HC’s observation wherein it had said, “It was stated that there is no ideological meeting of minds and the lower court has misinterpreted witness statements to draw a connection between Khalid and Imam, whereas the two have never even spoken to each other.
However, this court finds it a little difficult to accept the subject contention urged by the appellant at this stage. Admittedly, there exists a string of commonality which runs among all the co-accused. It is admitted position that both the appellant and Imam are members of the same WhatsApp group. It is also an admitted position that the duo participated in the protest organised at Jantar Mantar.”
It has been argued by Sharjeel Imam that HC has made remarks against him irrespective of the fact that he wasn’t a party in the bail plea.“In any event, without prejudice to the foregoing, there is absolutely no evidence on record to justify the Impugned observations/remarks made against the Petitioner. Notably, none of the Impugned observations and remarks are borne out of the record. Rather, they are ex-facie contradictory and even go beyond the allegations contained in the chargesheet,” the plea states.
Lastly, he has also said that remarks have been made in complete defiance of the law laid down by SC’s judgments reiterating which vitiate his right to a fair trial.