Back
A Delhi court on Saturday held that student activist Sharjeel Imam violated the conditions of his by being present while a media outlet interviewed his brother, but declined to cancel the temporary relief because it was due to expire later that day and Imam had already surrendered.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the examined video footage submitted by the and concluded that Imam had breached the express condition barring him from coming into contact with media persons. The court noted that different portions of the video showed the same room and appeared to have been recorded at nearly the same time, bearing the logo of the news agency that conducted the interview. “Thus, apparently the accused has flouted the term ii of the bail order dated , whereby he was granted ,” the judge observed.
Despite finding a violation, the court declined to cancel the , noting that the seven-day relief was set to expire on Saturday itself and that Imam’s counsel had informed the court he had already boarded a flight to Delhi to surrender. The prosecution had argued that Imam’s conduct was “” and amounted to a gross misuse of the liberty granted by the court.
The Alleged Media Interaction
Imam was granted on for the period from to to attend his cousin’s wedding. The order explicitly prohibited him from using social media and from coming into contact with any media person. He was also barred from meeting anyone outside his family, relatives, and friends.
The moved the court on , alleging that a video circulating on YouTube and social media platform X showed Imam interacting with media persons during his temporary release. In its application, the police stated, “A video is circulating on social media in which Sharjeel Imam can be clearly seen interacting with the media persons during the period of . Therefore, the accused grossly violated the aforesaid condition that he shall not come in contact of any media person.”
Opposing the cancellation, Imam’s counsel argued that his client had neither given an interview nor interacted with any journalist. The defence contended that the video was a compilation of clips from different sources and that the interview was given by Imam’s brother, who was not bound by any such restriction. The court, however, rejected this argument after carefully examining the footage, finding that Imam was present in the same room during the interview.
Background of the Case
Imam was arrested on , and charged under the for his alleged role as a key intellectual architect of the larger conspiracy behind the communal riots in northeast Delhi. The violence left 53 people dead and hundreds injured. He has been in judicial custody for over five years.
The to attend his cousin’s wedding was the second such relief granted to Imam this year. In March, he was released for 10 days to attend his brother’s wedding. The had rejected his regular bail plea in , holding that delay in trial and prolonged incarceration cannot become a “” for seeking bail in UAPA cases. The apex court observed that while personal liberty is an important constitutional value, it cannot be the sole factor when allegations involve serious offences affecting public order and national security.
The ’s affidavit before the had accused Imam of being instrumental in engineering the first phase of violence between , which later escalated into the riots. Investigators cited WhatsApp chats from the “MSJ Core Group” and multiple public speeches in which Imam allegedly called for a disruptive “Chakka Jam” and urged supporters to block highways to “cut off” regions of India.
Broader Implications
The ruling underscores the strict scrutiny courts apply to bail conditions, particularly in cases under special statutes like the UAPA. While the court found a clear violation, its refusal to cancel the expiring bail reflects a pragmatic approach when the relief is about to lapse and the accused has complied with the surrender timeline.
Imam remains an accused in the larger conspiracy case (FIR 59/2020) being investigated by the Special Cell. Co-accused Umar Khalid also remains in custody, with the in holding that both men stood on a “” due to what it described as the “.” The court had directed that they could renew their bail pleas after one year or once all protected witnesses are examined.
With his now expired, Imam has surrendered to judicial custody. The trial in the case continues, with over 100 witnesses yet to be examined. The next hearing on the larger conspiracy charges is expected later this month.
