SC refuses to entertain Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea over Delhi riots conspiracy-OxBig News Network

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a bail plea of Sharjeel Imam – an accused in a terror case related to the 2020 Delhi riots ‘conspiracy’ – but asked the Delhi High Court to consider his request to expeditiously decide it.

“This being the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, we are not inclined to entertain the same. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to request the high court to hear the bail application as expeditiously as possible preferably on November 25, as fixed by the high court. The high court shall consider the said request,” a Bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice SC Sharma said.

While clarifying he was not pressing for bail at this stage, senior counsel Siddhartha Dave pointed out on behalf of Imam that his bail plea had been pending since 2022 and there had been 64 hearings since April 29, 2022.

“On eight occasions, we sought time whereas the rest of time either the bench was not there or… I am not blaming anyone. Allow or reject my petition. I will come to the apex court, if it’s not allowed. I only want a hearing,” Dave said, asserting that moving the Supreme Court under Article 32 off the Constitution was a fundamental right.

Imam – who was arrested in the present case on August 25, 2020 — has challenged before the high court a Delhi court’s April 11, 2022 order refusing to grant him bail.

Imam and several other persons were booked under the anti-terror law — UAPA and certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the “masterminds” the “larger conspiracy” behind the February 2020 Delhi riots during the visit of the then US President DONALD Trump that claimed 53 lives and left more than 700 injured. The violence had erupted during the protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Dave submitted that Section 21(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act mandated that it had to be decided within three months.

The Bench, however, said it was not inclined to entertain the bail plea as the high court was scheduled to hear it on November 25.

As the court said there were eight FIRs against Imam, Dave clarified the present petition related to only one FIR under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.