Riots 2020: Delhi HC Sets July 9 for Hearing on Sharjeel Imam’s Bail Plea

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday deferred to July 9 the hearing on Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.

The plea was listed before a division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur. The matter was adjourned after the prosecution sought time.

During the previous hearing, Imam's counsel argued that the prosecution relies on chats of two WhatsApp groups, but failed to provide any message that shows the intention of Imam to incite violence or communal hate.

Imam's counsel contested the charges against him, asserting that Imam was not in Delhi during the riots that occurred in February and was delivering speeches in Bihar and Bengal. Imam's advocate further argued that Imam was being prosecuted in a separate FIR regarding the riots that occurred in December and January under provisions of sedition, unlawful activity, and hate speech, in which Imam was granted bail.

Imam's counsel further argued that Imam was uniquely disconnected from the other accused and was not part of any group activity that involved the plans to incite violence. The group referred to as MSJ was, according to the advocate, an informal student collective, and no chat messages from this group demonstrated any intent to incite violence in Delhi or elsewhere.

“In these chats, the prosecution failed to show any chat that conveyed the intention of inciting violence in Delhi or any part of the country”, the advocate for Imam submitted.

Per the prosecution's case, because the MSJ group was made, the participants belonged to a single community and therefore it is a communal group. No single message from that group has been shown that could show any intention of inciting violence… Per the principles established by the Supreme Court, hate speech is when one community is pitted against another community. In the absence of a second community, there is no question of the group being communal”, the advocate for Imam submitted.

According to the prosecution, Imam’s acts of conspiracy included creating the group MGJ and organizing early meetings for mobilization.Imam's advocate countered this by noting that the riots being investigated in this current FIR occurred between February 22 and 26, while any incidents from December or January were subject to different cases and should not be conflated with the present matter.

The prosecution had referenced a meeting on December 8, 2019, in Jangpura, allegedly attended by Imam, Umar Khalid, and others. The advocate for Imam clarified that while Imam was indeed present at the meeting with Khalid and Yogendra Yadav, only two co-accused individuals were present. Citing a witness statement by one Tahira, the advocate for Imam stated that the meeting's objective had been to organize a “chakka jam,” and no discussion on violence had occurred.

“Absolutely nothing on violence. When there is absolutely nothing on violence per prosecution's own evidence, then how is the later meeting being termed as conspiratorial in nature?”, the advocate for Imam argued. The advocate for Imam rejected the prosecution’s argument that Imam and three other co-accused were meeting. The advocate for Imam argued that the prosecution “somehow fails to show any connection. no phone call records, no messages with any of them”.

In conclusion, the advocate for Imam urged the court to show compassion and fairness in evaluating the matter, stating that Imam’s life had been laid bare before the Court. 

Case Title: Sharjeel Imam v The State 

With PTI inputs