Imam will still remain in custody as he has not got bail in other cases against him
New Delhi: A Delhi Court granted bail to former JNU student Sharjeel Imam in the 2019 sedition case. He was accused of delivering a provocative speech that led to violence in the Jamia Nagar area.
He will still remain in custody as he has not got bail in other cases against him. Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal granted bail to Sharjeel in FIR 242/2019 registered at the NFC Police station. A detailed order copy is awaited.
This development in the sedition case came days after the trial court was asked by Delhi High Court to consider Sharjeel Imam’s application seeking relief under Section 436-A CrPC. High Court asked to do so on the ground that he has remained in custody for 31 months in the FIR.
Saket Court denied regular bail to Imam in October 2021. The Court said the tone and tenor of his ‘incendiary speech’ had a debilitating effect upon public tranquility, peace, and harmony of the society.
While his bail plea was pending before Delhi HC, he had recently moved an application in the trial court under section 436-A.
Also Read: Oracle India Bribed Railway Officials, Paid US$400,000 For Contract In 2019
Section 436-A states that a person can be released on bail by the court if he has served up to one-half of the maximum sentence specified for the offense charged against him prior to the conclusion of the trial.
According to the NFC Police FIR, on December 15, 2019, police received information about a protest being held by students and residents of Jamia Nagar against the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB).
Protestors had blocked the road and the traffic movement was at a halt. started damaging public/private vehicles and properties with sticks, stones, and bricks, according to the police case.
The prosecution claimed that protestors were all fueled up by his speech on December 13 in 2019 and then resorted to violence.
In its bail order in October, the trial court stated that the evidence against Imam was “scanty and sketchy” to conclude that his speeches incited riots. The court also stated that the prosecution case for riot instigation had “gaping holes” that could not be filled with “surmises and conjectures.”
His bail application was denied, however, because further investigation was required to determine whether the speech amounted to sedition under Section 124A IPC and promotion of communal disharmony under Section 153A IPC.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
