New Delhi: A Delhi court on Monday granted interim bail to student activist Sharjeel Imam, who is facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi riots “larger conspiracy” case, to attend his brother’s wedding and take care of his ailing mother.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts allowed Imam’s plea and granted him interim bail for 10 days, from March 20 to March 30.
Imam, who has been in custody for several years, faces allegations that several student activists involved in organising protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) during 2019–2020 had conspired to engineer the riots that broke out in North-East Delhi in the last week of February 2020.
According to the Delhi Police, the violence was not a spontaneous outbreak but the culmination of a premeditated conspiracy involving mobilisation, road blockades, and coordinated protests aimed at disrupting normal life and drawing international attention during the visit of then US President Donald Trump.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed the bail pleas of Imam and Umar Khalid in the “larger conspiracy” case, holding that the prosecution material, taken cumulatively and at face value, disclosed reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against them were prima facie true, thereby attracting the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
A Bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar said that at the stage of bail under the stringent anti-terror law, the court is only required to examine whether the prosecution’s version is prima facie plausible and not to weigh competing interpretations of evidence as in a trial.
“The enquiry is confined to determining whether, on the prosecution material as it stands and taken at face value, there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true,” the apex court said.
The top court also rejected the argument that Imam was being prosecuted merely for his speeches and protest activities, observing that the prosecution material placed him at the inception of a mobilisation strategy that allegedly culminated in the February 2020 violence.
The Supreme Court also clarified that physical presence at the site of the riots was not necessary to establish conspiracy liability.
“The prosecution case is that the appellant’s role is foundational, operating at the stage of mobilisation, organisation and strategy, and that physical presence at the scene of the final violence is not a condition precedent,” it said.
While noting concerns over the delay in trial, the apex court said that the appropriate remedy was to ensure expedition of proceedings rather than grant bail where the statutory embargo under the UAPA applied.
(IANS)
