Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notice in Delhi Police’s plea challenging the trial court’s order discharging Sharjeel Imam and ten others in the 2019 Jamia Milia Islamia University violence case.

While ordering that the trial court’s order will have no impact on the ongoing investigation or proceeding against an accused namely, Mohd. Ilyad, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to pass any interim direction expunging the observations made by Trial Court as prayed for by the Delhi Police.

“I am not expunging anything right now. Some things have been said, the ASG is right, which will bind the police. I cannot interfere with the investigation. I am calling for TCR in digital form& will say that Observation made against the investigation agency by the Trial Court will not influence the further investigation in the case”, the single-judge bench said.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain appeared for the Delhi Police and submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) result is still awaited in the case. “So, what emerges so far is that there has been registration of FIR, a main chargesheet and three supplementary chargesheets have been filed by us”, Jain submitted.

The ASG contended that the trial court is feeling handicapped by the fact that permission was not taken to file supplementary chargesheets further. Referring to a part of the Trial Court order, he submitted that this order gets “polluted” and “poisoned” when the Judge relies on a wrong law. Jain stated that permission is implied when the police filed a supplementary chargesheet. "There has to be some reasoning for the rejection, which is not given by the Trial Court," he said.

Jain contended that it is a cardinal principle that only for a re-investigation the Delhi Police needs permission. Arguing on what basis the trial court judge disregarded the third chargesheet, Jain stated that according to him, it is “havoc” and “mayhem”, as it is not something that invites the police to take action against people who were disturbing the law and order of the society.

The ASG contended, “We have a great deal of objection with the trial court's observation, this is going to prejudice my further investigation and further chargesheets. It will also hamper my case on Mohd. Ilyas. It’s a ridiculous position.”

He further submitted that: “The order is giving an impression that it is a correct finding. If they are innocent, is it to be prejudged in a mini-trial or at a stage of charges or it is to be decided after the trial.” He added that on February 3, the matter was listed for charges, and on February 4, the accused persons were discharged by the trial court.

“It is not a question of dissent. It is about an unlawful assembly turning into a riot. Am I to be governed by my conscious or by the Law? This is a very dangerous trend that people who were part of unlawful assembly are being discharged with such an order”, the ASG contended.

Taking note of the submissions, the court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file a short note of not more than four pages. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further hearing on March 16 at 2:15 pm.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad on Friday had 'allowed' the urgent listing of the plea filed by Delhi Police challenging the Trial Court’s order discharging Sharjeel Imam and ten others in connection with the Jamia Milia Islamia University violence case of 2019. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta had mentioned the matter before the bench. 

It is to be noted that on February 7, the Delhi Police moved the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s order discharging Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Sarfoora Zargar, and 8 others in the 2019 Jamia violence case.

Notably, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Arul Varma of the Saket Court, had emphasized that “dissent is simply an extension of the invaluable fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution of India” while discharging Imam, and others in the case.

“Dissent is nothing but an extension of the invaluable fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, subject to the restrictions contained. It is therefore a right which we are sworn to uphold”, the Judge had said.

While discharging the 11 accused persons, the court had pulled up the Delhi Police and said, “The police were unable to apprehend the actual perpetrators behind the commission of the offence, but surely managed to rope the persons herein as scapegoats”.

“Investigating agencies should have incorporated the use of technology, or have gathered credible intelligence, and then only should have embarked on galvanizing the judicial system qua the accused herein…It should have abstained from filing such an ill-conceived chargesheets qua persons whose role was confined only to being part of a protest”, the Judge had added.

The Judge in the 32-page order had said, “Some anti-social elements within the crowd created an environment of disruption and did create havoc, however, the moot question remains: whether the accused persons herein were even prima facie complicit in taking part in that mayhem? The answer is an unequivocal ‘no’. Marshaling the facts as brought forth from a perusal of the chargesheet and three supplementary chargesheets, this Court cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the police were unable to apprehend the actual perpetrators behind the commission of the offence, but surely managed to rope the persons herein as scapegoats".

The FIR, in this case, was filed in connection with a protest held by students and residents of Jamia Nagar against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. The Trial court discharged Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Sarfoora Zargar, Mohammed Abuzar, Umair Ahmad, Mohammed Shoaib, Mahmood Anwar, Mohammed Qasim, Mohammed Bilal Nadeem, Shahzar Raza Khan, Chanda Yadav.

All the accused persons were charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 323, 353, 332, 333, 308, 341, 427, 435, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Title: State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors.

Statue: The Indian Penal Code, The Constitution of India, and the Code of Criminal Procedure