Read Time: 09 minutes
Sharjeel Imam was taken into custody in January 2020 after he allegedly delivered several provocative speeches that were accused of inciting violence during anti-CAA demonstrations in Delhi and other states.
The South East Saket Court, recently, framed charges against Sharjeel Imam along with others for inciting violence that occurred in Delhi in 2020. The court while framing charges noted that Sharjeel Imam was not only the instigator but the kingpin of the larger conspiracy to incite violence.
Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Singh held, “Accused Sharjeel Imam was not only an instigator, he was also one of the kingpins of larger conspiracy to incite violence”.
The court noted that a chakka jaam could not be considered peaceful. In a densely populated city like Delhi, numerous critically ill patients require urgent medical attention at any given time. A chakka jaam had the potential to worsen their condition or even result in death if they failed to receive timely medical care, which amounted to culpable homicide.
The court observed that the vehicles providing essential and emergency services remained active on the roads, and a chakka jaam effectively violated the fundamental right to life and health of the public. Even if the crowd refrained from engaging in violence or arson while enforcing the chakka jaam, it still constituted an act of violence by one section of society against another.
The case stemmed when Inspector Rajesh Kumar Mishra received information about a large protest near Surya Hotel against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Upon reaching the location, he found students, alumni, and political members raising slogans and marching towards Parliament. Despite repeated warnings from the police, the demonstration escalated into violence. Protesters removed barricades and set buses on fire. The unrest spread across multiple locations, where rioters torched vehicles, hurled stones, and attacked police officers. Several law enforcement personnel sustained injuries, and numerous vehicles were damaged.
Sharjeel Imam, a Ph.D. student at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), allegedly played a pivotal role in inciting the violence. According to Special Public Prosecutor Ashish Dutta, Imam conducted public meetings, distributed inflammatory leaflets, and delivered speeches against the CAA and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Imam's speeches, recorded and widely shared on social media, allegedly urged the Muslim community to disrupt public movement, which, the prosecution claimed, led to the riots.
The court considered Imam a key conspirator and charged him under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment, rioting, and promoting enmity. The prosecution argued that his speech amounted to hate speech and had instigated the violence. Along with him, co-accused Ashu Khan, Chandan Kumar, and Aasif Iqbal Tanha faced similar charges. However, the charge of sedition under Section 124A IPC remained subject to further orders from the Supreme Court.
Several other accused individuals, including Anal Hussain, Anwar alias Kala, Yunus, Jumman, Rana, Mohd. Harun, and Mohd Furkan, were identified by police witnesses as active participants in the riot. They allegedly threw stones at police officials and set vehicles ablaze. The authorities further confirmed their presence at the crime scene through call detail records (CDR) and mobile location data. As a result, they were charged under multiple sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
Conversely, the court found insufficient evidence against another group of accused individuals, including Mohd. Adil, Roohul Ameen, and Mohd. Jamal. Except for Mohd. Yusuf, who was allegedly identified in a rioter’s poster, no witness directly placed them at the protest site. The court deemed mobile location data unreliable as sole evidence of their involvement. Without additional proof, the court discharged them from the case.
Meanwhile, proclaimed offenders Asad Ansari and Mohd. Hanif alias Ali Hanif remained absconding. The court stated that charges against them would be determined upon their appearance in court.
Background:
In September 2024, the Delhi High Court rejected the early hearing petition filed by Sharjeel Imam for his pending bail petition maintaining that the bail plea would be heard on the already scheduled date.
Imam's bail plea has challenged the order, dated 11 February 2022, wherein the Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma court had previously denied any relief to the JNU student stating that Imam's speeches intended to create 'public disorder' and 'incitement to violence' and also appeared to challenge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.
The Supreme Court, recently, refused to entertain an Article 32 petition, noting that Imam could not have moved an Article 32 petition before the top court while his bail plea was pending before the Delhi High Court.
Case Title: State v Anal Hussain
Please Login or Register
