Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Sharjeel Imam Under Section 436A CrPC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted statutory bail to Sharjeel Imam in a case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sedition, noting that he had been in custody for over four years, exceeding half of the maximum seven-year sentence prescribed for the UAPA offence under consideration. The court set aside the trial court's order which had denied him relief under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain emphasized that while bail under Section 436A CrPC is not automatic, the discretion to deny it and order continued detention must be based on "rational and logical reasons," which were absent in the trial court's decision.

Background of the Case

Sharjeel Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 124A (sedition), 153A, 153B, 505(2), and Section 13 of the UAPA. Charges were framed against him on March 15, 2022. The trial, initially proceeding on a day-to-day basis, saw 22 out of 48 prosecution witnesses examined.

However, proceedings related to the sedition charge (Section 124A IPC) were effectively stayed following the Supreme Court's directions in S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India , where the Apex Court paused trials under this provision pending its re-examination. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court, in Crl. A. 347/2022 on October 31, 2022, stayed the recording of evidence of material witnesses in Imam's trial based on the mutual consent of the parties, pending the Supreme Court's decision on the sedition law. As a result, the trial has remained in abeyance.

Trial Court Denies Statutory Bail

Having spent over four years in custody, Imam sought bail from the trial court citing Section 436A CrPC. This provision mandates the release of an undertrial prisoner if they have undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence (excluding offences punishable by death), unless the court records reasons for continued detention.

Considering the maximum sentence for Section 13 UAPA is seven years, Imam had undisputedly served more than half that period (3.5 years). However, the trial court denied bail on February 17, 2024, citing "exceptional circumstances" and the "severity of the allegations," particularly that his speeches allegedly resulted in riots, violence, property damage, and loss of life. The trial court did not find any delay in proceedings attributable to the accused.

Arguments Before the High Court

Challenging the trial court's order before the High Court, Imam's counsel argued that he met the criteria under Section 436A CrPC by serving over half the sentence.

The prosecution, represented by SPP Rajat Nair, contended that the delay in the trial was solely attributable to the accused, as he sought and obtained the stay of proceedings in 2022. The State argued that Imam was employing "dilatory tactics" and could not take advantage of the delay he caused to seek relief under Section 436A.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Delhi High Court rejected the prosecution's argument regarding delay. The bench held that an accused cannot be blamed for causing delay merely by availing a legal remedy, especially when it is in terms of a specific judicial pronouncement like the Supreme Court's stay on sedition trials. The court noted that the stay was granted by mutual consent and the State had not challenged that order. Crucially, the trial court's order denying bail also did not find any delay attributable to the accused.

Addressing the trial court's reliance on the severity of allegations, the High Court referenced its earlier decision in Abdul Subhan Qureshi vs. State (NCT OF DELHI) , stating that the "mere fact that the allegations against the appellant were serious in nature, cannot be taken as a ground for declining such relief provided under Section 436-A Cr.P.C."

The court also referred to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar vs. Directorate of Enforcement , where the Apex Court granted relief under Section 436A CrPC, observing that seeking legal remedies could not be considered adverse conduct disentitling an accused from statutory bail.

Finding no "justifiable reason" in the trial court's order to deny the relief under Section 436A CrPC, the High Court allowed Sharjeel Imam 's appeal.

The court directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.