The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on the bail plea of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam in cases related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020 [Sharjeel Imam v The State of NCT of Delhi]. .The notices were issued by a Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta which posted the matter for further hearing on March 24..Pertinently, the Bench remarked that the lower court order which denied bail to Imam, dealt with none of the relevant considerations for grant/ denial of bail."He (the lower court judge) has dealt with nothing. All these offences are less than 7 years. We are asking you (Delhi Police) why should he not be enlarged? Is he a flight risk? Will he tamper with evidence? Who are the witnesses," the Court asked the counsel for Delhi Police. The Delhi Police lawyer pointed out that Imam has also been charged with Section 124A, which carries life sentence. Justice Mridul then responded that sedition requires specific calls for violence."The sedition issue has been dealt with by the court long back....We don't need to reinvent the wheel in this. It is very clear... The incitement has to be (of) violence. There has to be a conscious act propagating promoting violence. Please examine it," the Court remarked. .He (the lower court judge) has dealt with nothing.Delhi High Court.Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing for Imam, said that the "the FIR has taken out three lines from the speech and made to believe that he is inciting violence.""If you read the speech in its entirety, you will see (it is) different," Mir submitted.On as many as 25 occasions, he (Imam) says 'we don't have to incite violence', Mir added.Justice Mridul then told the Delhi Police that the public prosecutor will have to really persuade the Court on not granting bail."You will have to really persuade the court that bail should not be granted in this case," he told the Delhi Police counsel..Prosecution will have to really persuade the court that bail should not be granted in this case.Justice Sidharth Mridul.Imam has approached the High Court challenging the orders of the lower court which rejected his bail plea in January and framed Sedition and other charges, including those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The case pertains to Imam’s allegedly provocative speeches in relation to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019, and a speech given at the Aligarh Muslim University in January 2020..The Delhi Police's chargesheet in the conspiracy case stated that Imam was the “mastermind” of the Shaheen Bagh road blockade. It was also alleged that in the late afternoon of December 15, 2019, Imam, with the help of Jamia student Arshad Warsi and his accomplices, started a 24x7 permanent road block (chakka jam) of road number 13, Kalindi Kunj Road at Shaheen Bagh..His counsel, Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, had earlier sought discharge and bail in the case while submitting that Imam was not a terrorist and was not related to any terrorist organisation. He was only a votary of social and economic equality having no political agenda, Mir had argued before the lower court.The lawyer had also argued that Imam's speech, which was labelled as seditious, called for the society to unite and respond to the government's policy on CAA and NRC."Criticism of government policies is obviously protest. Criticism comes in the form of songs, movies, protests. He said block roads, etc., but there will be no people. This is what he advocates," he had submitted..Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had contended that the fact that one of Imam’s speeches began with ‘assalam-o-alaikum’ demonstrated that it was only meant for a particular community and not the public at large.“Entire content focuses on two to three points. Speech was divisive. It wasn't a speech made for general public but a specific community. And he is attempting to create complete anarchy,” Prasad said, referring to one of Imam’s speeches..[Delhi Riots] Delhi court orders framing of Sedition, UAPA charges against Sharjeel Imam
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on the bail plea of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam in cases related to the Delhi Riots of February 2020 [Sharjeel Imam v The State of NCT of Delhi]. .The notices were issued by a Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta which posted the matter for further hearing on March 24..Pertinently, the Bench remarked that the lower court order which denied bail to Imam, dealt with none of the relevant considerations for grant/ denial of bail."He (the lower court judge) has dealt with nothing. All these offences are less than 7 years. We are asking you (Delhi Police) why should he not be enlarged? Is he a flight risk? Will he tamper with evidence? Who are the witnesses," the Court asked the counsel for Delhi Police. The Delhi Police lawyer pointed out that Imam has also been charged with Section 124A, which carries life sentence. Justice Mridul then responded that sedition requires specific calls for violence."The sedition issue has been dealt with by the court long back....We don't need to reinvent the wheel in this. It is very clear... The incitement has to be (of) violence. There has to be a conscious act propagating promoting violence. Please examine it," the Court remarked. .He (the lower court judge) has dealt with nothing.Delhi High Court.Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir appearing for Imam, said that the "the FIR has taken out three lines from the speech and made to believe that he is inciting violence.""If you read the speech in its entirety, you will see (it is) different," Mir submitted.On as many as 25 occasions, he (Imam) says 'we don't have to incite violence', Mir added.Justice Mridul then told the Delhi Police that the public prosecutor will have to really persuade the Court on not granting bail."You will have to really persuade the court that bail should not be granted in this case," he told the Delhi Police counsel..Prosecution will have to really persuade the court that bail should not be granted in this case.Justice Sidharth Mridul.Imam has approached the High Court challenging the orders of the lower court which rejected his bail plea in January and framed Sedition and other charges, including those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The case pertains to Imam’s allegedly provocative speeches in relation to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019, and a speech given at the Aligarh Muslim University in January 2020..The Delhi Police's chargesheet in the conspiracy case stated that Imam was the “mastermind” of the Shaheen Bagh road blockade. It was also alleged that in the late afternoon of December 15, 2019, Imam, with the help of Jamia student Arshad Warsi and his accomplices, started a 24x7 permanent road block (chakka jam) of road number 13, Kalindi Kunj Road at Shaheen Bagh..His counsel, Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, had earlier sought discharge and bail in the case while submitting that Imam was not a terrorist and was not related to any terrorist organisation. He was only a votary of social and economic equality having no political agenda, Mir had argued before the lower court.The lawyer had also argued that Imam's speech, which was labelled as seditious, called for the society to unite and respond to the government's policy on CAA and NRC."Criticism of government policies is obviously protest. Criticism comes in the form of songs, movies, protests. He said block roads, etc., but there will be no people. This is what he advocates," he had submitted..Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had contended that the fact that one of Imam’s speeches began with ‘assalam-o-alaikum’ demonstrated that it was only meant for a particular community and not the public at large.“Entire content focuses on two to three points. Speech was divisive. It wasn't a speech made for general public but a specific community. And he is attempting to create complete anarchy,” Prasad said, referring to one of Imam’s speeches..[Delhi Riots] Delhi court orders framing of Sedition, UAPA charges against Sharjeel Imam
