"Actions and acts of accused can be termed seditious," says Delhi court while dismissing Sharjeel's bail plea

New Delhi [India], February 17 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Saturday dismissed the bail plea of Sharjeel Imam. The court said that the acts and actions of the accused can be termed as seditious as just after his speeches and activities, riots occurred in North East Delhi in 2020 causing damage to public property and the death of a large number of people.
The court also said that the accused used powerful words that captured the minds of people of a particular community and incited them to take part in disruptive activities which resulted in the riots
Special judge Sameer Bajpai dismissed Sharjeel Imam's bail plea seeking statutory bail on the grounds of the period undergone during custody of this case.
It was also stated that proceedings under Section 124A (Sedition) are in abeyance by an order passed by the Supreme Court.
"Although the court cannot take into consideration Section 124A IPC if the acts and actions of the applicant are considered, in a normal dictionary, they can be termed seditious," Special Judge Bajpai said in the order.
Thus, keeping in view the alleged acts of the applicant, the court is of the view that the facts in the case at hand are not normal and different from the facts that in any other case could be.
"Considering the allegations deemed against the applicant and his disruptive activities, the court deems it appropriate not to consider the relief as prayed for and to continue his custody," the court said.
The court said, "It is noted that although the applicant did not ask anybody to pick the weapons and kill the people but his speeches and activities mobilised the public, which disrupted the city and might be the main reason for the outbreak of the riots."
"Further, through inflammatory speeches and social media, the applicant skillfully manipulated the real facts and incited the public to create havoc in the city," the court stated.
It is noted in the charge sheet that after the speeches of the applicant and due to his activities, the number of protesters and protest sites in Delhi increased and as suggested by the applicant, the crowd started blocking the main roads, which consequently put the whole city on a standstill, the court said.
"Finally, just after the speeches and the alleged activities of the applicant, on different dates and places, the riots occurred, causing violence, huge damage to public property and the deaths of a large number of people," the court observed.
In the charge sheet, the allegations against the applicant are that, in the context of CAA/NRC, the applicant delivered different speeches at Jamia on 13.12.2019, at AMU on 16.01.2020, at Asansol on 22.01.2020 and at Chakband on 23.01.2020, thereby inciting the public, which ultimately triggered the communal riots in different parts of North East Delhi in February 2020.
It is noted that the incidents or riots also triggered on December 13, 2019 at Jamia; on December 15 at New Friends Colony; on December 16 at Dayal Pur; on December 17, at Seelampur and Jafrabad, and on December 20, 2019 at Seemapuri and
Nand Nagri, the court noted.
The contents of the speeches clearly show that the applicant incited the public to do chakka jams and block the cities, it added.
Particularly in the speech dated January 16, 2020, as delivered at AMU, the applicant said that if a particular number of people are organised, the north-east part of the country can be permanently or temporarily cut, the court further noted.
The applicant, in the speech dated January 22, 2020, at Asansol, said that the members of a particular community are not in the police, army, court or parliament, which was totally wrong and misconceived, the court said.
Besides this, the applicant spoke about several things and facts that may not be true and thereby provoked the public as they gathered at different places, it further said.
Notably, Sharjeel Imam had approached the high court seeking statutory bail under Section 436 A CrPC.
The trial court began a fresh hearing on February 7, 2024. Advocates Talib Mustafa and Ahmad Ibrahim appeared for Sharjeel Imam.
It was argued that he has been in custody since January 2020. It is said that he has undergone more than 4 years, whereas the maximum punishment is seven years under the relevant section of UAPA. The proceedings in the sedition cases have been stayed by the Supreme Court.
Advocate Talib Mustafa submitted before the high court that the bail order was reserved for three months. Thereafter, the presiding judge was transferred. Now the matter has been listed for fresh arguments before the current special judge. On the other hand, the bail plea was opposed by the special public prosecutor (SPP), Ashish Dutt.
He had argued that while deciding the bail application, the gravity of the offences also had to be considered, not the period undergone. The period of sentence for all offences should be considered by the court. SPP had also argued that the integrity and sovereignty of the country would be in danger if the accused is released on bail.
On December 9, 2023, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat asked the Delhi Police to file a clarification.
Earlier, SPP Amit Prasad had submitted that there is some ambiguity on the provision mentioned by the defence counsel on the point that whether the accused under UAPA with multiple offences and undergone half of the sentence under UAPA, is entitled to be released on bail under Section 436A Cr.pc.
Advocate Talib Mustafa had opposed the submissions made by the SPP for the Delhi Police.
He argued that what the SPP is submitting is related to post-conviction cases. Sharjeel is not under trial. The submissions don't apply to him.
He has been in custody since January 28, 2020. Therefore, he is entitled to statutory bail under Section 436 A Cr.pc, as the counsel had argued.
On the other hand, Delhi police said that there are multiple offences, not only one. Section 436 A Crpc talks about only 'an offence'.
SPP Amit Prasad argued that a concurrent sentence is a principle, an exception, whereas a consecutive sentence is a rule. In this way, the maximum sentence he can be awarded is 16 years, and the punishment is restricted to 14 years.
The advocate for Sharjeel said, "There is a presumption of innocence on the part of the accused until proven guilty."
The counsel submitted that the applicant has been in custody since January 28, 2020, in connection with the FIR of January 25, 2020, P.S. Crime Branch, registered for the offences punishable under 124A, 153A, 153B and 505(2) IPC and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
It is stated that the applicant was arrested in his hometown of Jehanabad, Bihar, on 28.01.2020 and was produced before the Patiala House Court. Since then, he has been in judicial custody after police interrogation.
It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a final report or charge sheet against the applicant has been filed in this case on July 25, 2020, for the offences punishable under 124A, 153A, 153B, 505 of the IPC and Section 13 of the UAPA.
The Court took cognizance of the speeches and offences under sections 124A, 153A, 1538 and 505 IPC on 29.07.2020 and Section 13 of the UAPA, on July 19, 2020, as the plea stated.
Thereafter, charges were formally framed against the applicant on March 15, 2022, by the Court under sections 124A, 153A, 153B and 505 IPC.