July 12, 2026 04:12 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
'Highway blocked, stones pelted, cops injured': BJP faces open revolt in Madhya Pradesh over Narottam Mishra ticket snub | Two Kolkata Police DCPs suspended over alleged remarks against Bengal CM Suvendu Adhikari | Bail to Bloodbath: Telangana man allegedly kills wife, kids and teen who accused him of sexual harassment | Prakash Raj gets bail in multiple voter registration case linked to 2019 polls | ED raids Shekhar Suman associate's premises in FEMA case; phone allegedly thrown from 13th floor | 'Candidate fled': Prashant Kishor jibes BJP over Bankipur nominee change | BJP replaces candidate days before high-stakes Bankipur bypoll | Foreign franchise league enters India! BBL opener to be played in Chennai, announce Modi-Albanese | 'They could have stopped me': Vijay blames police, former DMK government over Karur stampede | 'People will correct their 2025 mistake': Electoral debutant Prashant Kishor predicts BJP defeat in Bankipur
Photo: facebook.com/sharjeel.imam

Sharjil Imam moves SC after Delhi HC denies bail in sedition case

| @indiablooms | Sep 06, 2025, at 08:30 pm

New Delhi: Former JNU student Sharjeel Imam has approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case linked to the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.

 

Imam filed the petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s September 2 order that denied him relief, reported the India Today.

Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020. He has been in custody for over five years.

The case is yet to be listed for hearing before the apex court, according to the report.

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur had earlier refused bail to Imam, co-accused Umar Khalid, and seven others, observing that, prima facie, Imam and Khalid’s roles appeared “grave.”

The court pointed to speeches delivered “on communal lines” allegedly aimed at mobilising members of the Muslim community.

Police allege the accused were part of a broader conspiracy to stage anti-CAA protests across Delhi in 2019–20 with the objective of carrying out terrorist acts.

The charges include setting up protest sites, mobilising students and residents, distributing pamphlets in Muslim-majority areas, delivering speeches nationwide, raising funds, and stockpiling materials to incite violence.

The FIR invokes the UAPA, IPC, Arms Act, and Public Property Act for conspiracy, incitement, fund collection, rioting, assaulting public servants, and damaging government property.

The High Court highlighted the bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which prohibits bail if accusations appear prima facie true.

It also cited ongoing witness testimonies and concerns over possible witness tampering.

Arguments based on prolonged incarceration were rejected.

The court said extended custody alone is not grounds for bail in UAPA cases, given the scale of the investigation—comprising over 3,000 pages of charge sheets, 30,000 pages of digital evidence, four supplementary charge sheets, and 58 witnesses.

The bench concluded that the “interest and safety of society at large” must be weighed against the rights of the accused, while allowing the trial to proceed at its natural pace.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.