Delhi Court Grants Interim Bail to Activist Sharjeel Imam for Family Wedding
Court Decision on Bail
A court in Delhi has approved a temporary bail of ten days for activist Sharjeel Imam, who faces allegations of involvement in a broader conspiracy linked to the 2020 Delhi riots. This decision was reported on Monday.
The bail is effective from March 20 to March 30, allowing Imam to attend his brother's wedding set for March 25.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai from Karkardooma Courts mandated a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with two sureties of the same amount.
Imam's legal representative informed the court that he has been incarcerated for five years without any temporary release.
The court stipulated that during this interim bail, Imam is prohibited from contacting witnesses or individuals associated with the case. He is permitted to meet only family members and must remain at home or at the wedding venues.
Furthermore, Imam is barred from engaging with the media or utilizing social media platforms.
He was taken into custody in January 2020 due to speeches delivered in various locations, including Delhi and Aligarh, during protests against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens.
The riots in North East Delhi in February 2020 resulted in 53 fatalities and numerous injuries, predominantly affecting the Muslim community.
Authorities have alleged that the unrest was orchestrated as part of a conspiracy to tarnish the reputation of the Narendra Modi administration, claiming it was planned by those who led the protests against the amended Citizenship Act.
According to the police's chargesheet, Imam's speeches allegedly incited the Muslim community, leading to the riots.
Those implicated in the conspiracy are facing charges under various laws, including the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Indian Penal Code.
On January 8, the Supreme Court granted bail to five individuals involved in the conspiracy case but denied it to Imam and another activist, Umar Khalid, citing that they were considered 'masterminds' and that the evidence against them warranted such a decision.