'Sharjeel Imam flouted interim bail conditions': Delhi court observes violation, but refuses to cancel bail

A Delhi court on Saturday said student leader Sharjeel Imam had breached the conditions of his interim bail after a news channel was seen recording videos at his residence during his temporary release. The court, however, declined to cancel the relief, noting that his interim bail was due to expire on Saturday.

The Delhi Police had approached the court on Friday, seeking cancellation of Imam’s interim bail in the 2020 Delhi riots larger conspiracy case. The police alleged that he had violated the restrictions imposed on him by interacting with media persons.

Imam was granted seven days of interim bail on September 22, covering the period from October 4 to October 10, to attend his cousin’s wedding. The relief came with conditions prohibiting him from using social media or engaging with the media.

Police allege Imam breached bail conditions

In its application, the Delhi Police referred to a video reportedly circulating in the media, claiming that Imam “could be clearly seen” interacting with media persons.

“Therefore, the accused grossly violated the aforesaid condition that he shall not come in contact of any media person,” the police said in its plea, describing the alleged violation as “wilful and deliberate”.

The police maintained that Imam had misused the liberty granted to him by the court and sought the cancellation of his interim bail.

Imam arrested in January 2020

Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, and charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The police have alleged that he was a key intellectual architect of the conspiracy behind the communal riots in northeast Delhi in February 2020, which claimed 53 lives and left hundreds injured.

Court rejects fresh bail pleas by Imam, Umar Khalid

In a related development, ASJ Bajpai on July 5 rejected fresh bail applications filed by Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid. The court cited a January 5 Supreme Court order that denied them bail and specified conditions for their applications to be reconsidered.

The two had relied on a May 18 Supreme Court judgment granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency. In that ruling, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed “serious reservations” about the reasoning adopted in the January 5 order.

The trial court, however, noted that the apparent differences between the two Supreme Court rulings had been referred to a larger bench. It said the fresh bail applications could not be considered until the issue was resolved.