The Karkardooma Court in Delhi denied bail to former JNU student and Islamist Sharjeel Imam in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) concerning the Delhi Riots in early 2020. The Delhi Court on Monday dismissed the bail plea moved by Imam over his connection with a case regarding a conspiracy into the Delhi riots of 2020.
Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat pronounced the order after hearing the arguments made by Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing on behalf of Sharjeel Imam. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appeared for the prosecution.
Arguments by Mir on behalf of Sharjeel Imam
Advocating the bail plea for Imam, Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir asserted that no allegation of conspiracy can be framed against Imam while he was arrested in another riots case, days before the riots in Delhi started on the 24th of February. Mir contended that the act of conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution did not arise as his arrest had happened prior to the violence that took place. Mir asserted, “Arrest is prior, riots are later. I reiterate arrest is prior, riots are later.”
Mir said that we cannot have a system where conspiracies become endless and are rendered in perpetuity against the accused. He asked how conspiracies against Sharjeel Imam could continue even after his arrest. “We can’t have a situation where conspiracies become endless, suits a government case. Law of conspiracies by State has to be within boundaries, can’t be endless,” he added. “What act of mine post my arrest is being called into play for larger conspiracy, to cause the murder of who? Even at this stage of bail, if this kind of conspiracy is sustained, we will be turning the law of conspiracy on its head,” Mir asked on behalf of Sharjeel Imam.
Advocate Mir had argued that in order to deny bail in the matter, there has to be evidence of an overt act of conspiracy to cause a riot staged in a particular location which can be attributed to Imam.
Opposition to Imam’s bail plea
Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad who opposed the bail plea stated, “The arrest of Sharjeel Imam is not for conspiracy but for seditious speech prior to his arrest. So to say the arrest is for conspiracy is a misdirected argument. If a conspiracy was detected and investigative agencies were able to prevent riots from happening, even then it would be termed a conspiracy. What is being argued is not in line with the factual positioning of this case.”
Prasad referred to various events dating back to early December 2019, showing Imam’s alleged involvement in the criminal conspiracies following his speech and conversations with Islamist groups in the run-up to the riots. Inciteful speeches were delivered by Sharjeel Imam at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Jamia Milia Islamia in Delhi during the anti-CAA-NRC protests. On January 24 this year, the Court had also framed charges of sedition, promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, imputations prejudicial to national integration, and public mischief under the Indian Penal Code, and indulging in unlawful activities under UAPA.
Hearing arguments from both sides, Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat dismissed the bail plea by Sharjeel Imam. The Islamist activist remains in custody since January 2020 after he gave calls for the separation of the north-eastern states from the rest of India.
