Delhi court denies interim bail to Sharjeel Imam in sedition case

A Delhi court, on Saturday, rejected a plea for interim bail filed by Sharjeel Imam in a case of sedition and other charges observing that though the Supreme Court had kept Section 124A (sedition) in abeyance, the case can proceed with other charges [Sharjeel Imam v. State].Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat rejected the bail plea stating that Imam's bail plea had already been rejected before on merits and even though the Supreme Court had kept Section 124A (sedition) in abeyance, the case can proceed based on other charges against Imam.“The pending trials with respect to the charges framed under Section 124A IPC have been kept in abeyance, however, adjudication with respect to other Sections can proceed if the court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused,” the Court said.The Court, therefore, underlined that there was no embargo on the trial continuing in a case which has various other offences besides Section 124A IPC.“Nor there is any express order for grant of interim bail pending the continuation of the said writ petition before the Supreme Court of India,” the judge added.Besides sedition, Imam has been charged with promoting enmity between groups, public mischief, and offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). In October 2021, a court had denied bail to Imam, stating that the speech delivered by Imam at Jamia Milia University on December 13, 2019 was clearly on communal/divisive lines and could affect peace and harmony in the society.He had subsequently moved an appeal in the Delhi High Court.While it remained pending, the Supreme Court, on May 11, passed a landmark order directing that all pending appeals and proceedings across the country with respect to the charges framed for sedition, be kept in abeyance.Imam then filed an application before the High Court seeking interim bail but the High Court directed him to approach the trial court. He then moved the present bail plea..On Saturday, judge Rawat’s order highlighted there could only be one bail order on the merits of the case and the court could not again pass an order on the merits that too in an interim bail application.“Otherwise, by this logic, there can be two bail orders on merits of the case at the same time passed by this Court. The merits of the case cannot be agitated again in an interim bail application in view of the disposal of the previous bail application and orders on charge both dated 24.01.2022,” the order said.For Imam, it was contended that all offences except sedition of which accused has been charged, carried a maximum sentence of seven years. The counsel argued that sedition has been “put on hold” by the Supreme Court and Imam has been “wrongly charged” under Section 13 of UAPA in view of the judgment of Kanchan Mishra and, therefore, it should be disregarded.“Considering the non applicability of Section 13 of UAPA, the position of Section 124A IPC and the fact that accused satisfies the triple test criteria for bail, the present bail application must be allowed and applicant be released on bail,” it was argued..The special prosecutor opposed the bail application stating that the charges against the accused were serious in nature.It was also argued that there was no direction by the Supreme Court that all persons accused of sedition should be released on interim bail in cases in which other offences have also been invoked and the trial could proceed without causing any prejudice to the accused by examination of several witnesses.The Court noted that it had already passed an order framing charges against Imam and also dismissed his bail application.“The said two orders have been appealed and pending before the Delhi High Court. How can this court again give a finding on the issue of the applicability of Section 13 UAPA particularly when the charges are framed vide a detailed order dated 24.01.2022,” it said..COURT DECLINES ORAL PRAYER FOR STAY ON TRIAL .The order outlined that adjudication with respect to other charges aside from sedition could proceed if the court was of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused.Imam’s case was stated to have other charges apart from sedition and some witnesses like the complainant or the witness who had to prove sanction in respect of Section 124A IPC or the investigating officers could not be examined in light of the Supreme Court order.The order, however, said that those witnesses who had to prove the sanction order with respect to Section 13 of UAPA or forensic experts or other experts who could prove their reports, could still be examined without causing any prejudice to the accused..Advocate Talib Mustafa represented Imam.Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad appeared for the state..[Read Orders]