Sharjeel Imam has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court for bail in the Delhi riots case. While challenging the decision of the trial court, he has based the delay in the trial and his long detention as the basis. The hearing of this case is to be held on Friday.
New Delhi [भारत]July 16 (ANI): Sharjeel Imam has moved the Delhi High Court in the case of an alleged larger conspiracy related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. In this case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), he has challenged the order of the lower court in which his bail plea was rejected. His appeal is to be heard on Friday before the division bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan.
What arguments were given in the petition?
Imam has challenged the July 4 order of the Karkardooma Court, which had refused to grant him regular bail. In his appeal, Imam has said that more than six months have passed since the Supreme Court’s January 5 order, but no meaningful progress has been made in the case.
He has argued that the debate on framing of charges has still not been completed and he has been in custody for almost six years. The appeal, filed through lawyer Ahmed Ibrahim, said that the long delay in the trial and continued detention amounts to a change in circumstances, which is a strong basis for granting bail.
Imam has also cited the Supreme Court’s May 22 order granting interim bail to co-accused Tasleem Ahmed. It has also been mentioned that the legal issue related to bail will be sent to a larger bench under Section 43D(5) of UAPA. According to the petition, this is another important development which should be considered while deciding his bail plea.
Why did the lower court reject the petition?
On July 4, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Court had rejected the regular bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid. The court said it was bound by the January 5 order of the Supreme Court, which had rejected his previous bail pleas. The Supreme Court had allowed him to seek bail again only after examination of protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution or after a year, whichever is earlier. Since neither of the two conditions were fulfilled, the trial court held that the bail applications were not maintainable.
What was the argument of the prosecution?
The prosecution had opposed the petitions arguing that there was no significant change in the circumstances after the Supreme Court’s decision. He also told that the Supreme Court has already rejected the review petition of Umar Khalid. This case is related to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the North-East Delhi riots of 2020. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)