Sharjeel Imam seeks bail from HC in Delhi riots case

On September 2, a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur (since retired) dismissed the bail pleas of Imam and fellow student activist Umar Khalid, holding that their roles in the conspiracy appeared “prima facie grave”.

Three days after the Delhi High Court refused bail to student activist Sharjeel Imam in the larger conspiracy case linked to the February 2020 Delhi riots, he approached the Supreme Court on Saturday.

Imam, arrested on January 28, 2020, has spent over five years in pre-trial detention.

Imam, arrested on January 28, 2020, has spent over five years in pre-trial detention. His petition, filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil, argues that his incarceration has been prolonged due to systemic delays in the trial for which he cannot be blamed. The denial of bail, despite over half a decade of custody, amounts to punishing an undertrial, the petition contends, urging the top court to secure his liberty.

On September 2, a bench of justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur (since retired) dismissed the bail pleas of Imam and fellow student activist Umar Khalid, holding that their roles in the conspiracy appeared “prima facie grave”. The high court also refused bail to seven others — Gulfisha Fatima, United Against Hate founder Khalid Saifi, Athar Khan, Mohd Saleem, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider and Shadab Ahmed — relying on what the investigators described as a coordinated conspiracy culminating in the riots that left 53 people dead and hundreds injured.

The court noted that both Imam and Khalid were the first to mobilise opposition after Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill in December 2019, through WhatsApp groups, pamphlets, and speeches allegedly delivered on communal lines. Delhi Police, represented by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, had described them as the “intellectual architects” of the conspiracy.

While Imam was in custody since January 28, 2020, and Khalid was not present in Delhi during the outbreak of violence, the high court held that their absence at riot sites was immaterial because the mobilisation and planning had already been carried out. “The mere absence…a few weeks or days before the riots may not be sufficient to mitigate their role,” the HC bench had noted.

Delhi Police had earlier argued that Imam gave inflammatory speeches in Aligarh, Asansol and Chakand, while Khalid spoke in Amravati on February 17, 2020, urging protests on February 24 — when US President Donald Trump began his state visit to India.

The accused, however, argued before the high court that they had no role in any meetings where violence was allegedly planned, and that their prolonged detention violated the principle of bail being the rule and jail the exception. They sought parity with fellow student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha, who were granted bail in 2021.

Imam emphasised that he had been in custody since January 2020, weeks before the riots, and that his speeches had no connection with the violence. Khalid said his reference to Trump’s visit in a February 17, 2020 speech at Amravati was innocuous and unrelated to the violence that began a week later.

The high court, however, rejected these arguments, stressing that unlike the limited roles of some co-accused who secured bail, Imam and Khalid’s involvement was prima facie more serious. The judges also underlined that while the right to protest is protected, conspiratorial violence cloaked as demonstrations cannot be permitted.

According to a person aware of the matter, Imam’s petition before the Supreme Court focusses sharply on the delay in trial, citing the fact that the police have filed multiple supplementary charge sheets and have listed dozens of witnesses, with there being no indication of when the proceedings may conclude. The plea also emphasises that long incarceration of undertrials in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) raises serious constitutional questions under constitutional provisions related to equal protection before law, right to free speech, right to speedy trial and liberty.

The Supreme Court is expected to list the matter for hearing in the coming days.