Sharjeel Imam Approaches Supreme Court After Bail Denial in Delhi Riots ‘Larger Conspiracy’ Case
New Delhi: Activist Sharjeel Imam has moved the Supreme Court of India challenging the Delhi High Court’s recent decision denying him bail in the case related to an alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
Imam, who was arrested on January 28, 2020, is among several accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in FIR No. 59/2020, registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell.
The Supreme Court is yet to list the matter for hearing.
High Court Observed ‘Grave Role’ of Accused
On September 2, a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur of the Delhi High Court denied bail to Imam, as well as several co-accused including Umar Khalid, Athar Khan, Khalid Saifi, Mohd Saleem Khan, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, and Shadab Ahmed.
In its ruling, the court observed that, prima facie, both Imam and Umar Khalid played a “grave” role in the alleged conspiracy, having delivered “inflammatory speeches on communal lines” aimed at mobilizing mass protests within the Muslim community.
The court emphasized that the trial must proceed naturally, and that rushing the proceedings could be detrimental to both the accused and the State.
Background: Delhi Riots and UAPA Case
The case pertains to the communal violence that erupted in Northeast Delhi in February 2020, resulting in over 50 deaths and hundreds injured.
FIR 59/2020 includes a wide list of accused individuals, among them:
- Tahir Hussain
- Umar Khalid
- Sharjeel Imam
- Khalid Saifi
- Ishrat Jahan
- Meeran Haider
- Gulfisha Fatima
- Shifa-ur-Rehman
- Asif Iqbal Tanha
- Natasha Narwal
- Safoora Zargar, and others
All are alleged to have been part of a planned conspiracy to incite violence during the anti-CAA protests, according to police chargesheets.
Sharjeel Imam’s plea in the Supreme Court is likely to reignite legal and political debates surrounding the use of anti-terror laws in protest-related cases, especially as the trial in the case continues to move at a slow pace.
