New Delhi: On Friday, the Delhi High Court sought the Delhi Police’s response regarding the bail plea of activist Sharjeel Imam in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) concerning the alleged ‘larger conspiracy’ behind the Delhi riots. A bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan issued notice on Imam’s appeal, which challenged a trial court’s order dated July 4 dismissing his second regular bail application.
What did the Delhi High Court say?
The bench granted the Delhi Police two weeks to file a response to the appeal and scheduled the hearing for August 27. Imam was arrested on August 25, 2020, and charged under the UAPA. He was accused of being one of the ‘masterminds’ behind the February 2020 riots in North-East Delhi, which resulted in 53 deaths and injuries to over 700 people.
Violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). While dismissing Imam’s bail plea, the trial court stated it had no option but to comply with a Supreme Court order dated January 5; consequently, it could neither consider the petition nor grant bail. The court observed that the bail plea was not even maintainable before it.
What did Sharjeel Imam claim?
In his appeal to the High Court, Imam argued that the trial court erred by refusing to independently consider his regular bail plea. The petition noted that even after the passage of six years, the proceedings in the trial court have not progressed beyond the stage of arguments on framing charges. Supreme Court Dismissed Khalid and Imam’s Pleas
On January 5, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Imam in the ‘larger conspiracy’ case, while granting relief to co-accused Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmed. A bench comprising Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria observed that a ‘prima facie’ case under the UAPA is made out against Khalid and Imam, and further noted that all accused cannot be treated alike given the varying ‘levels of participation’.
