NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has asked for the CCTV footage of the jail cell on a plea filed by JNU student leader Sharjeel Imam alleging assault in the prison cell he is lodged in connection with the 2020 riots larger conspiracy case.
Imam, through his lawyer Ahmad Ibrahim, had alleged that the assistant superintendent of Tihar Jail along with 8-9 convicts had entered his cell on June 30 in the garb of a search, assaulted him and called him a terrorist and anti-national.
Additional session judge Amitabh Rawat has asked the duty register of jail sevadar to be present before the court during the next hearing on July 20. “Let the concerned jail superintendent be also present on the next date of hearing for assisting the court in disposal of the present application. Let the register of the inmates/sewadars, who participated in the said surprise search, as stated, may also be produced in the court on the next date. Let the CCTV footage of all the said three cameras for June 30 for the period 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm be also produced on the next date, July 20,” the court order stated.
Through his advocate, Sharjeel had stated that there were two CCTV cameras installed in his cell, while the third one was just outside. He also said that otherwise he feels safe in the present ward of the jail with all other inmates, but does not know why the said incident occurred.
Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020 and will complete two years in jail this week in judicial custody. Additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat ordered framing of the charges against him. “Accused is directed to be charged for the offences under sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity on grounds of religion), 153B (assertions prejudicial to national integration), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief), of Indian Penal Code and section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities) of UAPA. Vide separate order, the application filed by Sharjeel Imam for grant of regular bail is dismissed,” the court ordered. During the previous hearing, Imam had submitted before the court that there was nothing in his speech that caused religious animosity.