JNU student Sharjeel Imam moves HC for interim bail citing SC order on sedition

A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar is likely to hear the plea on Tuesday.

Published: 16th May 2022 11:43 PM  |   Last Updated: 16th May 2022 11:43 PM   |  A+A-

Sharjeel Imam

Sharjeel Imam (File Photo | Facebook, SharjeelImam)


NEW DELHI: JNU student Sharjeel Imam, who is arrested in a case related to alleged inflammatory speeches made by him during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) in 2019, has approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim bail, citing the Supreme Court's order to keep in abeyance proceedings in all sedition cases in the country.

A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar is likely to hear the plea on Tuesday.

Imam has filed an application seeking interim bail in his already pending bail plea.

The application, filed through advocates Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, and Kartik Venu, said that the trial court's order, rejecting his bail, is primarily based on the premise that the special court had no power to grant bail under Section 437, CrPC in view of the limitations imposed therein, once the court had by separate order, sought it fit to frame sedition charges against Imam.

"In view of the Supreme Court's directions, the hindrance raised by the special court in the impugned order stands obviated, and observations surrounding the offence under section 124-A (sedition) IPC cannot be taken into consideration in the proceedings against the appellant (Imam) pending the final outcome of the constitutional challenges to the section. Dehors the issue of Section 124-A IPC, the case against the appellant stands significantly diluted and improves his case for securing bail," the plea said.

It said Imam has been incarcerated for nearly 28 months whereas the maximum punishment for the offences, not including 124-A IPC, is punishable up to a maximum of 7 years of imprisonment.

It added that the continued incarceration of Imam is unsustainable and warrants the interference of this court.

On May 11, the Supreme Court had stayed till further orders on the registration of FIRs, probes, and the coercive measures for the offence of sedition across the country by the Centre and the states until an appropriate forum of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.

The top court had taken note of the concerns of the Centre and said the "rigours of Section 124A (sedition) of the IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu" and permitted reconsideration of the provision.

It had extended the interim orders, granting reliefs to the accused of the offence of sedition.

Any affected party was at liberty to approach the concerned courts which are requested to examine the reliefs sought taking into consideration the present order, the apex court had said.

All pending cases, appeals, and proceedings concerning the provision of sedition would be kept at abeyance and the adjudication of other offences, if any, could proceed, it had said.

As per the prosecution, Imam had allegedly made speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019, and at Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019, where he threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the Northeast from India.

Imam, who has been charged with section 124A of the IPC which entails life imprisonment, has approached the high court challenging a trial court's January 24 order denying him bail in the case.

Imam's counsel has said he has been in custody for the last over two years and there was no likelihood of the trial getting over in the near future as there were more than 170 witnesses to be examined and the trial has not even started yet.

The bail plea said that the instant FIR was registered against Imam on January 25, 2020, simultaneously with four other FIRs across multiple states for the same speeches attributed to him.

The instant FIR was originally registered for the 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 Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was added.

Subsequently, Imam was arrested in this case from Bihar on January 28, 2020, and was remanded to police custody for 8 days and has been in continuous judicial custody since then.

He is also one of the accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case.

The prosecution has claimed that his speeches incited hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Central Government and instigated the people which led to the violence in December 2019.

"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's charge sheet has stated.

In his defence, Imam had earlier told the court that he is not a terrorist and his prosecution is a "whip of a monarch rather than a government established by law".

Whereas, the prosecution claimed that violent riots took place pursuant to Imam's speech.

Delhi Police had filed a charge sheet before the trial court against Imam in the case, in which it alleged that he allegedly gave speeches inciting hatred, contempt, and disaffection towards the Central Government and instigated the people which led to the violence in December 2019.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp