Sharjeel Imam did not call anyone to bear arms, no violence incited: Allahabad High Court [Read bail order]

In its bail order passed on Saturday, the Allahabad High Court held that Sharjeel Imam did not call anyone to bear arms and that his speeches did not incite violence [Sharjeel Imam v. State of Uttar Pradesh]..The order was passed by Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh, who held,"...it may be noted that on an undisputed basis neither the applicant called any one to bear arms nor any violence was incited as a result of the speech delivered by the applicant. The exact imputations made and the effect prompted by the applicant by words uttered or gestures made etc. may remain to be examined at the trial which is yet to commence. Inasmuch as the applicant has remained confined for more than one year and two months against a maximum punishment that he may suffer on conviction being three years, for that reason alone the applicant has become entitled to bail, at this stage, in the undisputed facts of this case.".The case pertained to the speech Imam made at Aligarh Muslim University, during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) held in the campus on January 16, 2020. Four FIRs were registered against him, including one in Aligarh under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race etc), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration) and 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code. He has been in jail since September 18, 2020..Counsel for Imam submitted that the ingredients of the offences are not made out, as he had not exhorted the listeners to take up arms or engage in violent acts that may have threatened the integrity and unity of the country or to commit any act of hatred against any community.Further, he submitted that there is no material in the case diary to suggest that the words spoken by Imam had any effect on any of the listeners. The speech was delivered on January 16 but the FIR was registered 9 days later and no evidence has been reproduced to indicate any violence that occurred due to his speech. Apart from the above, the counsel argued that an FIR cannot be registered except with prior sanction obtained under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that multiple FIRs were lodged against Imam arising from the same occurrence..Additional Advocate General appearing for the State opposed the bail by stating that the content of the FIR clearly bring out all ingredients of sedition and other offences mentioned in the FIR. He placed reliance on the criminal history of Imam in similar cases and those involving cases of heinous offences including Section 302 IPC (murder).He also brought the Court's attention to the habitual nature of Imam engaging in such illegal activities prior to and after the occurrence..After hearing both lawyers at length, the Court noted that Imam has remained confined for more than one year and two months for an offence that carries a maximum punishment of three years, if convicted.In view of the above and without expressing opinions on the merits of the case, the Court granted him bail with condition that he furnishes a personal bond of ₹ 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount. The following conditions were also imposed:1: The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressuring the witness, during the investigation or trial.2: The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.3: The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.The Court has also made it clear that any breach of the above conditions may result in cancellation of his bail..[READ ORDER]