Sharjeel Imam Moves HC for Bail Days After Supreme Court's Order on Sedition

Imam's application stated that since the court had put section 124A on hold, the case against him stands diluted.

Sharjeel Imam. 

(Photo: Accessed by The Quint) 

Days after the Supreme Court put the sedition law on hold, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Sharjeel Imam moved the Delhi High Court for interim bail in the case related to alleged inflammatory speeches given by him in Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Jamia Milia Islamia.

Imam stated in his plea that since Section 124A (sedition) has been put on hold by the court, he should be granted immediate bail.

The application stated that the hindrance regarding his bail plea which was raised by a lower court earlier stood removed since offences regarding section 124A cannot be taken into consideration in the proceedings against him, at least until the Supreme Court issues a judgment regarding the validity of the law of sedition, Bar and Bench reported.

Imam's Bail Application

Imam's application, which was filed by advocates Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim, and Kartik Venu, thus stated that the case made out against him stands diluted and improves his case for bail significantly.

"In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions, the hindrance raised by the Ld. Special Court in the impugned order stands obviated, and observations surrounding the offence under section 124-A IPC cannot be taken into consideration in the proceedings against the Appellant pending the final outcome of the Constitutional challenges to the section," the application stated, as per Bar and Bench.

The court is scheduled to hear Imam's fresh plea on 17 May. Another case against him with regard to the Delhi riots is listed for hearing on 23 May.

Observing that the central government agrees with the prima facie opinion of the court that the rigours of the sedition law were not in accordance with the current social milieu, the Supreme Court on 11 May had urged the central and state governments to refrain from registering any FIR invoking Section 124A.

It had also said that the relevant parties charged under sedition could approach different courts for relief.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench.)