Delhi Court reserves verdict on Sharjeel Imam's bail plea in sedition case

The Delhi Court on Wednesday reserved its order on Sharjeel Imam's bail plea in the sedition case. The order is to be pronounced on February 17.

He has sought statutory bail on the grounds of the period undergone by him till now in the case.

According to his grounds, he has been in custody since the last four years and it is more than half of the maximum sentence.

He is also an accused in the larger conspiracy of the Delhi riots case.

Special judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma Court reserved the order after hearing arguments of the Defence counsel and special public prosecutor for Delhi police.

The Delhi High Court on January 30 directed the trial court to decide his bail application within 10 days.

Sharjeel Imam had approached the high court seeking statutory bail under section 436 A CrPC.

This trial court began a fresh hearing on February 7, 2024. Advocate Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim appeared for Sharjeel Imam.

It was argued that he has been in custody since January 2020. It is said that he has undergone more than 4 years whereas the maximum punishment is seven years under the relevant section of UAPA. The proceedings under Sedition cases have been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Advocate Talib Mustafa submitted before the High Court the bail order was reserved for three months. Thereafter the presiding judge was transferred. Now the matter has been listed for fresh arguments before the current special judge.

On the other hand, the bail plea was opposed by the special public prosecutor (SPP) Ashish Dutt.

He argued that while deciding the bail application the gravity of the offences also has to be considered and not the period undergone. The period of sentence under all offences should be considered by the court.

SPP also argued that the integrity and sovereignty of the country will be in danger if the accused is released on bail.

It was argued by SPP that section 124A (Sedition) is only temporarily stayed and for the purpose of 436A, it can't be overlooked. He also argued that the Proviso to 436A allows the court to dismiss the application on account of gravity of offence.

Defence counsel rebutted the contention of SPP and submitted that there is nothing called temporary stay. SC order on 124A is very clear and there shall be no use of the provision for any purpose till the constitutional challenge is decided by the supreme court.

It was argued that contention of the SPP is based on selective and incorrect reading of section 436A. The provision is mandatory and gives no discretion to the court to deny bail on gravity of the charges levelled. Only discretion that the court exercises as per the provision is to see if the delay in trial can be attributed to the accused and which case isn't met in the present one.

On December 9, 2023, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat asked the Delhi Police to file clarification.

Earlier, SPP Amit Prasad had submitted that there is some ambiguity on the provision mentioned by the defence counsel on the point that whether the accused under UAPA with multiple offences and undergone half of the sentence under UAPA, is entitled to be released on bail under section 436A Cr.pc.

Advocate Talib Mustafa had opposed the submissions made by the SPP for Delhi Police.

He argued that what the SPP is submitting is related to post-conviction cases. Whereas Sharjeel is un undertrial. The submissions don't apply to him.

He has been in custody since January 28, 2020. Therefore he is entitled to statutory bail under section 436 A Cr.pc, the counsel had argued.

On the other hand, Delhi police had said that there are multiple offences, not only one offence. Section 436 A Crpc talks about only 'an offence'.

SPP Amit Prasad argued that a concurrent sentence is an exception whereas a consecutive sentence is a rule. In this way, the maximum sentence he can be awarded is 16 years, the punishment of which is restricted to 14 years.

Spp has presumed that I would be convicted. It is Contradictory to the principle of innocence, the counsel argued.

Advocate for Sharjeel had argued that What is SPP is arguing that If I have been convicted and the court is to pass an order on sentence. There is a presumption of innocence of the accused until proven guilty.

The benefit of section 436 A is for under-trial prisoners and not for convicted. The punishment I have already undergone can be cumulative once again. The counsel questioned.

The counsel submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 28.01.2020 in connection with FIR of 25.01.2020 P.S. Crime Branch, registered for the offences punishable U/s 124A, 153A, 153B and 505(2) IPC and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

It is stated that the applicant was arrested from his hometown Jehanabad, Bihar in this case on 28.01.2020 and was produced before the Patiala House Court. Since then, he has been in judicial custody after police interrogation.

It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter stands concluded and a final report/chargesheet against the applicant has been filed in this case on 25.07.2020 for the offences punishable u/s 124A, 153A, 153B, 505 of IPC and Section 13 of UAPA.

The Court took cognizance of the speeches/offences under section 124A, 153A, 1538 and 505 IPC on 29.07.2020 and Section 13 of the UAPA, on 19:12 2020, the plea stated.

Thereafter, charges were formally framed against the applicant on15.03 2022 by Court under section 124A, 153A, 153B and 505 IPC

The Supreme Court had passed the direction effectively staying the operation of Section 124A IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, it added.

The High Court of Delhi, on 31.10.2022 directed that the trial be stayed in respect of material witnesses and only formal witnesses be examined.

It is argued that the Section 436A of Cr.PC. is a wholesome beneficial substantive provision substantive one which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

It is also said that after the stay of trial in the present case by the High Court in regard to the main offence of Section 124A IPC (Sedition) in light of the directions passed by Supreme Court in S.G Vombatkere vs Union of India on 11.05.2022, the only offences remaining against the applicant relate to an offence punishable U/s 153A IPC (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years, 153B IPC (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration) which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years, 505 IPC (Statements conducing to public mischief) which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years and 13 of UAPA (Punishment for unlawful activities) which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years.