The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Police to file a response regarding student activist Sharjeel Imam's appeal against the denial of his bail. This follows a trial court's decision to reject his bail application in a case linked to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. The matter is now set for further hearing on August 27.
The Delhi High Court bench, consisting of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan, has issued a formal notice to the Delhi Police concerning the bail appeal of Sharjeel Imam. This legal proceeding stems from the larger conspiracy case related to the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots, which followed protests regarding the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.
Imam, who has been in custody since August 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, filed the appeal after a trial court rejected his second regular bail application earlier this month. The trial court had indicated that it was bound by a January 5 order from the Supreme Court, which it interpreted as making the bail application not maintainable at that time.
In his appeal to the High Court, Imam contends that the trial court did not perform an independent assessment of his bail request. He also pointed to the duration of his detention, noting that nearly six years have passed since his arrest, while the trial proceedings have remained at the stage of arguments on charges.
The Delhi Police have been granted a period of two weeks to submit their response to the High Court. The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 27 to further deliberate on the matter.
The case is part of a broader legal context involving multiple individuals accused in connection with the 2020 riots. On January 5, the Supreme Court declined to grant bail to Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid, stating that there was a prima facie case against them under the UAPA. In the same period, however, the court granted bail to several other co-accused in related matters, including Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. The legal distinction in the court's treatment of these individuals has centered on their alleged varying levels of participation in the conspiracy.