"SHAJREEL IMAM DEFAULT BAIL: LEGAL ANGLE"

INTRODUCTION
Amid the scourge of the raging pandemic wrecking the lives and livelihood indiscriminately
comes the news of issuing notice in Imam’s plea for default bail. Time was given to police
beyond 90 days given in the statute, to finish the probe in the matter. Due to pandemic, the
situation was worsened and investigation in the matter was hampered. Imam was alleged of
passing incendiary harangue in the protest of Anti-CAA and Anti-NRC.

FACTS OF THE ISSUE

Shahjreel Imama, a former student of JNU was arrested on 28th Jan 2019 for the violent
protest against CAA near Jamia Millia Islamia University in December 2019. He was booked
by the police allegedly seditious speeches during the protest against CAA and NRC. In the
beginning the case was filled under Section 12-A (Sedition); 153-A (Promoting enmity
between classes) and 505 (statement conducing of public mischief) of IPC. The case was
registered at New Delhi Police Station relating to the alleged inflammatory speeches given by
Imam and allegedly provoking a specific religion to distort the access to North East region of
India from rest of India.

Afterwards, it was alleged that Imam was involved in organizing protest at Shaheen Bagh
which later came into the glare of publicity after a video demonstrating him making
controversial comments before gathering at Aligarh Muslim University, for the same he was
arrested under sedition. One more case was also filed against him in Assam under the rigid
Anti-Terror law for the statement in relation to Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Assam
“severed from India, even it for a few months”. Later, he was arrested in Jehanabad district in
Bihar. Imam has approached the Delhi High Court, against the order of the trial court for
giving more time to police for concluding the investigation. On April 25 the trial court passed
the order to grant the three more months beyond 90 days for the completion of the
investigation under unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The same was challenged by the
accused in the Delhi High Court. The accused has also requested for the bail on the very
ground that the investigation was not completed within the statutory period of 90 days and no
notice was given to him when the police filed request for the more time to conclude the
investigation. The trial dismissed the plea.

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The petition involves the Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for seeking bail
in the case of alleged seditious speech when protesting against Citizenship Act near Jamia
Police Station.

Trial Court along with the setting aside the order also passed the order which allows the Delhi
Police to thoroughly investigate the alleged commission under Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967. Section 43D (2) of UAPA Act was invoked which states that:
“Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period
of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor
indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the
accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and
eighty days: Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation under this Act,
requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any
person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall
also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody.”

Invoking Section 13 of UAPA Act which deals with the, “punishment for unlawful activities
firstly to, whomsoever takes part in it or commits it or advocates, abets, advises or incites the
commission of, any unlawful activity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine”

Along with this invoking Section 124 A of IPC for sedition, section 153 A of IPC and
promoting enmity between classes and section 505 of IPC for statements conducing to public
mischief.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
This robust matter took its different angle where Delhi High Court issued notice to Imam’s
plea seeking bail under section Section 167 (2) of the CrPC, 1973 in the case related to
alleged incendiary speeches in the Anti-Citizenship Act protest in Delhi. Issuance of the
petition led order of the trial court to be set aside and allowed Delhi Police to probe the
petitioner for alleged commission of offence under the UAP Act. This act allows
investigation for 180 days only. Petitioner had contended that the invocation of UAP Act on
88th day of the custody was with the sole intention to curb his liberty by depriving him of
right to the statutory bail after custody of 90 days in terms of section 167(2) of CrPC.

It was also raised in the order that by giving time to Delhi Police to carry out probe under the
act was devoid of the essential requirement under Section 43D(2) of the act. It was also
alleged that neither petitioner was given any notice under the respective section nor any
report was given by the Public Prosecutor. It is contended that the application for extension of
time was devoid of the genuine “compelling reason” that are required to be disclosed for
extension of probe time beyond 90 days.

CONCLUSION
One of the exemplary case of sedition which shook the very niche of the procedure of
criminal system in the country. Student of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Sharjeel Imam
arrested under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for arousing a specific religious
community to muss the imperium of the country. Speeches given by the petitioner were
seditious in nature, which caused serious community strife and promoted animosity between
various religious groups. By the way of harangue, he burgeon falsity of genocide in Assam.
Petitioner became the eye of the storm for his “inflammatory” speech in Delhi over
Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens and subsequently at Aligarh
University where he threatened to “cut off” Assam and other parts of Northeast India from
the country.