Accused Can't Be Blamed For Delaying Trial If He Chooses To Avail Legal Remedy: Delhi High Court In Sharjeel Imam's Case

While granting statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA case, the Delhi High Court observed that an accused cannot be blamed for causing delay in the trial if he chooses to avail legal remedy. “If any accused chooses to avail legal remedy and that too in terms of specific judicial pronouncement, he cannot be blamed for causing delay in the matter,” a division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said. The UAPA and sedition case was registered against Imam for the alleged inflammatory speeches made by him in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia area in the national capital against the Citizenship Amendment Act.The bench rejected Delhi Police's contention that the delay in the trial was solely attributable to Imam as it was at his instance that trial was stayed in 2022. It was also argued that Imam had sought stay of the trial but on the other hand he was trying to take advantage on the ground that he has suffered half of the maximum sentence.“Since he continued to be in detention, he was, even otherwise, not going to dig out any advantage at all, by exploring such other possible legal avenues,” the court said. It added that the stay was granted by a coordinate bench on the basis of joint statements of parties and such order was not further challenged by the prosecution.“Learned Trial Court got swayed by the enormity of the allegations, observing that he had made inflammatory speeches which resulted in riots, the bail was declined,” the bench said, adding that if any accused has merely attempted to avail legal remedies, it cannot be taken as an adverse conduct, disentitling him seeking release.“In the case in hand, we do not find any justifiable reason which could have compelled the Court from not granting the relief,” the court said. The court had allowed Imam's bail plea by which he challenged the trial court order denying him statutory bail in the case.Imam had sought bail on the ground of having undergone one half of the maximum seven years punishment. He will however remain in jail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case involving UAPA charges.“…we have no hesitation in holding that there was, actually speaking, nothing on record which could have disentitled the accused from seeking relief under Section 436-A Cr.P.C,” the court said. On February 17, the trial court dismissed Imam's plea observing that his speeches and activities “mobilised the public” which disrupted the national capital and might be the main reason for the outbreak of the 2020 riots.Imam was booked under FIR 22 of 2020 registered by Delhi Police's Special Branch. While the case was initially registered for the offence of sedition, Section 13 of UAPA was invoked later. He has been custody in the case since January 28, 2020.The court had framed charges against Imam in the FIR in January last year. He has been charged for the offences under Section 124A (sedition), 153A(Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), 153B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC along with Section 13 (Punishment for unlawful activities) of the UAPA.In June last year, Imam had moved the Delhi High Court challenging proceedings against him in two different cases for the same speech delivered at Jamia Millia Islamia University in December 2019. The matter is pending adjudication.Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Talib Mustafa, Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Mr. Kartik Venu, Mr. Shaurca Tyagi and Ms. Ayesha Zaidi, AdvocatesCounsel for Respondents: Mr. Rajat Nair, SPP with Mr. Dhruv Pande, AdvocateTitle: Sharjeel Imam v. StateCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 648Click Here To Read Order

Accused Can't Be Blamed For Delaying Trial If He Chooses To Avail Legal Remedy: Delhi High Court In Sharjeel Imam's Case

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags