Delhi High Court Dismisses the Plea of Former JNU student Sharjeel Imam Challenging the Trial Court’s Order for the Extension of Investigation Time

Must Read

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Follow us

In Sharjeel Imam v. State, the Delhi High Court rejected Imam’s Plea on July 10, 2020. The request challenged a Trial Court order that granted more time to the investigation agencies to file the charge sheet. This was in view of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case against him.

Facts of the Case

The police registered an FIR against Imam under Section 153A, 124A, and 505 of IPC. After this, the police arrested Imam on January 28, 2020. Allegedly, he delivered a seditious speech in December 2019 in light of the CAA protests. Consequently, this abetted riots in Jamia Millia Islamia area.

On the 88th day of his custody, Delhi police applied for an extension of the time for investigation. This came in reference to under Section 43D of UAPA by Delhi Police. Due to this, the right to access statutory bail got dismissed. For clarity purposes, the statutory bail is usually granted after 90 days of custody as per Section 167(2) of CrPC. Due to this, an instant petition had been filed on behalf of Imam to set aside the order of the Trial Court. The plea claimed that the investigation agency violated the legal procedure. The plea also stated that such an appeal took away his right to seek default bail.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Senior advocate Rebecca John, representing Sharjeel Imam, kept following arguments before the Court:

  1. The petitioner did not receive any notice of the application under Section 43D of UAPA.
  2. The petitioner was not produced before the Court for next remands. However, it is necessary to produce a person in remands every fifteen days as per the mandate of Section 167(2)(b) of CrPC.
  3. The investigation could not come to a standstill on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, the pandemic does not imply a denial of liberty.
  4. It is unclear why the supposed “careful” analysis took 88 days? Moreover, what additional facts were discovered after the eight days of police custody? What causes made it necessary to merit invocation of the UAPA on the 88th day of the custody?

She also invoked various cases before the Court, such as Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra (1994), Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. GNCTD (1996), and Mohd. Maroof & Ors v. State.

Respondent’s Arguments

Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, representing Delhi Police, stated that “The investigation doesn’t happen through video conferencing. The seizures, searches, movement, almost every part of the probe has been hit badly due to the pandemic.”

Further, Lekhi opposed Imam’s plea claiming that he was addressing a particular religious section of the society. Instead, the address was creating disaffection towards the government. Hence, it produced fears in public minds about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Court’s Decision

A single-judge bench comprised of Justice V Kameswar Rao dismissed the petition by granting no relief to Sharjeel Imam. The Court stated that since the agencies have 180 days to file the charge sheet for UAPA cases, the petitioner cannot be released on default bail.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -