Delhi court reserves order on Sharjeel Imam's plea seeking bail in sedition case

New Delhi [India], September 11 : Delhi's Karkardooma Court on Monday reserved an order on the plea of Sharjeel Imam seeking statutory bail on the grounds the period already undergone in a Sedition case. He has been in custody since January 28, 2020. 
It has been argued by his counsel that Sharjeel Imam has already undergone a period of more than three and a half years. This is more than one-half of the maximum sentence in this case.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat reserved the order on the bail plea after hearing submissions of Counsel for Sharjeel Imam and Delhi police. The court reserved the order till September 25.
Sharjeel Imam's counsel advocate Talib Mustafa, argued that the accused has undergone half of the maximum sentence, therefore he is entitled to statutory bail under section 436 A CrPC.
"He has undergone the maximum sentence even without a trial. Under section 13 UAPA has a maximum sentence of seven years. He has undergone three and half years," the counsel argued.
On the other hand, Delhi police said that there are multiple offences, not only one offence. Section 436 A CrPC talks about only 'an offence'.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad submitted that a concurrent sentence is an exception whereas a consecutive sentence is a rule. In this way, the maximum sentence he can be awarded is 16 years, the punishment of which is restricted to 14 years.
The SPP also argued that while granting bail the seriousness of the offences also to be considered.
Opposing the submission, counsel for Sharjeel argued that there is an infirmity in the submission of the SPP.
SPP has presumed that I would be convicted. It is contradictory to the principle of innocence, the counsel argued.
What the SPP is arguing is post-conviction, I am under trial not a convict, the counsel submitted.
"I have undergone more than the maximum sentence without conducting a trial for most of the offences. Only section 13 of UAPA remains against me which has the maximum sentence of seven years," the counsel argued.
Advocate for Sharjeel argued, "What is SPP is arguing that If I have been convicted and the court is to pass an order on sentence. There is a presumption of innocence of the accused until proven guilty."
The benefit of section 436 A is for under-trial prisoners and not for convicted. The punishment I have already undergone can be cumulative once again, the counsel questioned.
The court asked the gravity is one of the criteria, or the CrPC while granting bail.
It is said that the proceedings related to the offence of Sedition are stayed and the maximum punishment in offences under UAPA is seven years. He has been in custody since January 2020 that's half of the maximum punishment for the offence under UAPA.
It is contended that the applicant has been in custody since 28.01.2020 in this case and has completed a period of 3 years and more than 6 months under incarceration and has undergone incarceration extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the concerned offence by law.
Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim and Talib Mustafa have moved an application on behalf of Sharjeel Imam seeking his immediate release from the present criminal prosecution in terms of the statutory provisions contained in Section 436A of CrPC.
The counsel submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 28.01.2020 in connection with FIR of 25.01.2020 P.S. Crime Branch, registered for the offences punishable U/s 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 from his hometown Jehanabad, Bihar in this case 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 stands concluded and a final report or chargesheet against the applicant has been filed in this case on 25.07.2020 for the offences punishable u/s 124A, 153A, 153B, 505 of IPC and Section 13 of UAPA.
The Court took cognizance of the speeches/offences under section 124A, 153A, 1538 and 505 IPC on 29.07.2020 and Section 13 of the UAPA, on 19:12 2020, the plea stated.
Thereafter, charges were formally framed against the applicant on15.03 2022 by Court under section 124A, 153A, 153B and 505 IPC.
The Court had passed the direction effectively staying the operation of Section 124A IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, it added.
The High Court of Delhi, on 31.10.2022 directed that the trial be stayed in respect of material witnesses and only formal witnesses be examined.
It is argued that the Section 436A of Cr.PC. is a wholesome beneficial substantive provision substantive one which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
It is also said that after the stay of trial in the present case by the High Court in regard to the main offence of Section 124A IPC (Sedition) in light of the directions passed by Supreme Court in S.G Vombatkere v. Union of India on 11.05.2022, the only offences remaining against the applicant relate to an offence punishable U/s 153A IPC (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years, 153B IPC (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration) which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years, 505 IPC (Statements conducing to public mischief) which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years and 13 of UAPA (Punishment for unlawful activities) which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years. 
It is also contended that even as per the maximum punishment extending up to 7 years prescribed under Section 13 UAPA, the applicant has completed one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the concerned offence by law and hence, deserves grant of statutory bail under Section 436A of Cr.PC.