Read Time: 05 minutes
Sharjeel Imam was taken into custody in January 2020 for allegedly delivering provocative speeches during anti-CAA demonstrations in Delhi and other states. He was charged under UAPA for making inflammatory speeches at Jamia in Delhi and Aligarh Muslim University during protests against the CAA and the NRC. The charge sheet included two speeches he delivered in Delhi and another in Aligarh. According to the police, his remarks allegedly incited violence during the December 15 protests in Jamia Nagar, Delhi.
Sharjeel Imam, on December 12, in his bail petition claimed that “There is absolutely nothing in any chats showing that I incited violence of any kind”. Advocate Talib Mustafa, for Imam, further claimed that Imam has been in judicial custody for over 5 years with no prospect of the case initiating soon.
These arguments were made before the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur.
Advocate Mustafa began by recounting the sequence of events, stating that Imam had delivered four speeches in different locations: Delhi, Aligarh, Bihar, and Bengal. Following the delivery of these speeches, two FIRs were registered against him. Advocate Mustafa asserted that one month after the first speech, portions of it were made viral by a politician, leading to the filing of multiple FIRs for the same speech.
Referring to the case file, Advocate Mustafa stated that during the investigation, data analysis from Imam's mobile was conducted, which suggested his involvement in organizing a “disruptive chakka jam”. However, Advocate Mustafa argued that there was no evidence of any chats between Imam and the co-accused, nor was there any indication of him inciting violence.
Advocate Mustafa cited an order from the Allahabad High Court, which stated “Neither the applicant called anyone to bear arms, nor anyone was incited by a speech delivered by the applicant”.
Additionally, Advocate Mustafa referred to the Saket Court's decision in September 2022, where Imam was granted bail, noting the "Prima facie view that evidence in support of the allegations that writers were instigated by the speech is sketchy".
Advocate Mustafa also contested the prosecution's reliance on connectivity charts, emphasizing that while the co-accused appeared to be connected, Imam had no links to them. Witness statements were briefly read during the hearing, after which the court remarked that it would review the statements independently.
The court listed the matter of Sharjeel Imam for December 20, 2024, and Shadab Ahmed for January 14, 2025.
In October 2024, A division bench of the Supreme Court refused to entertain an Article 32 petition filed by Sharjeel Imam 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. Last month, the high court rejected the early hearing petition filed by Sharjeel Imam for his pending bail petition.
For Imam: Advocates Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, Ayesha Zaidi, Kartik VermaFor Respondent: Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad with Advocates Ruchika Prasad, Ayodhya Prasad and Chanya JaitlyCase Title: Sharjeel Imam v The State Of Nct Of Delhi (CRL.A.-184/2022)
Please Login or Register
