A Delhi court Monday dismissed an application offormerJNU studentand anti-CAA activistSharjeel Imam, booked under stringent anti-terror law -- Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act -- seekingbail on the ground that theinvestigationwas not concluded within the statutory period of 90 days.
Imam was arrested on January 28 from Bihar in the case related to violent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act near the Jamia Millia Islamia University in December last year.The statutory period 90 days would have concluded on April 27.
In the application, he contended that the trial court'sApril25order extending the period of investigation in the case to 90 days more is bad in law.
Rejecting the contention, Additional Sessions JudgeDharmenderRana, said the orderextendingperiod of investigationwas passed before expiry of statutory time period of 90 days.
Since the time period to conclude investigation has already been extended as per section 43 D (2) of UAPA, I am of the considered opinion that application for release of the accused on statutory bail is bereft of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed, the court said.
Section 43-D (2) of UAPA provides that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the 90 days period, then upon the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the probe and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the 90 days period, after satisfaction, the court can extend the period of probe to 180 days.
Imam is currently lodged in Guwahati jail in a case related to UAPA registered by the Assam police.
More From This Section
The counsel for Imam argued thatthe investigating agency did notconcludethe probewithin the specified time limitandhence the accused has an indefeasible right to be released onstatutorybail.
The lawyer submitted that although on April 25, period of investigation was extended for a further period of 90 days by a Roster Judge, that order is notinconsonance withthestatutory provisions.
The counsel further contended thatthecourt which passed the order for extension of probe period wasnot competent enoughand no reportwasfiled by the public prosecutor andthustheorderwas nonest(does not exist)in the eyesoflaw.
Even no notice was served upontheaccused before extension of time and in the absence of any notice, the courtcouldnot have extended the statutory time period, he submitted.
Additional PublicProsecutoropposed the application saying the Roster Judge was empoweredto deal with the application under the UAPAand waswell within his powers to entertain and disposeofthe application of the prosecutor for extension of time.
The prosecutor argued that thecounsel for the accused was duly intimated byway of WhatsApp about the application and despite intimation the counsel opted not to appear before thecourtand now the accused cannot cry foul.
The trial court had on April 25given 90 days more to the police to complete their investigation in the case.
The order was passed after thepolicehad told the court that due to global COVID-19 pandemic in the country and the ongoing lockdown, the pace of investigation was seriously disrupted.
The police further informed the court that they are yet to interrogate the members of WhatsApp group Muslim students of JNU, persons who provided their accounts to arrange for money to get printed the pamphlets and Imam's friendsandpersonswho initially video recorded the speech at Jamia areyettobe identified.
It said thatresultsin respect of hard diskof laptop and the mobile phoneand the alleged videosareyettobe receivedfromthe forensic lab and therepliesfrom Facebook, Twitter and Cert-Inareyet to bereceivedandanalysedand therequisite sanctions are also to be obtained.
Initially a case under section124 A (sedition) and 153AIPC (promoting enmity between classes)and 505(statementsconducing to public mischief)of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Crime Branch, New Delhi, pursuant tothe alleged speechesaddressedby Imam, allegedly instigating a particular religious section of the society to disrupt/block the access to North East region ofIndia from rest of India, police claimed.
The police had earlier charged Imam with sedition, alleging his speech promoted enmity between people that led to riots.
The mob indulged in large-scale rioting, stone-pelting and arson, and in the process destroyed several public and private properties whilea number ofpolice personnel and people were injured in the riots, thepolice had told thecourt.
Imam was arrested fromBihar''sJehanabad on January 28.
He was involved inorganisingprotests at ShaheenBagh but came into limelight after a video showed him making controversial comments before a gathering at Aligarh Muslim University, following which he was booked under sedition charges.
Another case was filed against Imam in Assam under the stringent anti-terror law for his remark that Assam could be "severed from India, even if for a few months" as a result of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
Police in Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh had also lodged FIRs against the JNU scholar over his speech in which he threatened to "cut off" Assam and the rest of the northeast from the country.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
