Imam Withdraws Bail Plea for Bihar Polls, Cites Supreme Court Jurisdiction in Strategic Move

NEW DELHI – In a significant procedural development, JNU scholar and student activist Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday withdrew an interim bail application from a Delhi court, a day after filing it to contest the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections. The move signals a strategic shift, with his legal team asserting that the Supreme Court is the "proper forum" for such relief, given that his appeal against the denial of regular bail is already pending before the apex court.

The application, which sought a 14-day release from October 15 to October 29, was presented before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai at the Karkardooma Courts. Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, representing Imam, cited a "technical issue" for the withdrawal, clarifying that since the substantive matter of Imam's liberty is under consideration by the Supreme Court, any application for interim relief should also be directed there. ASJ Bajpai allowed the request, instructing the counsel to file a formal application for withdrawal.

This development brings to the forefront critical legal questions surrounding judicial hierarchy, the appropriate forum for seeking interim relief, and the rights of undertrial prisoners, particularly those facing stringent terror charges, to participate in the democratic process.

The Legal Conundrum: Jurisdiction and Pending Appeals

The core of the decision to withdraw hinges on a well-established procedural principle: when a higher court is seized of a matter, particularly a substantive appeal concerning bail, it is generally considered the appropriate venue for any connected interim applications. Pursuing interim bail in a lower court while a regular bail appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could be viewed as an improper parallel proceeding or forum shopping.

Imam’s appeal against the Delhi High Court's September 2, 2025, order denying him regular bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case is currently before the Supreme Court. By withdrawing the plea from the trial court, his counsel has preempted potential objections from the prosecution regarding jurisdiction and is now set to approach the Supreme Court directly. This move, while seemingly a retreat, is a calculated legal strategy aimed at consolidating all bail-related matters before the highest judicial authority in the country.

Legal experts suggest this approach avoids procedural delays and potential dismissal at the trial court level, allowing the legal team to argue for interim relief as part of the broader appeal pending before the Supreme Court judges who are already familiar with the contours of the case.

The Bail Application: A Plea for Democratic Participation

Filed on Monday, October 13, 2025, Imam's application framed his request within the context of fundamental democratic rights. Incarcerated since January 2020 in connection with the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the subsequent Delhi riots, Imam remains in custody under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

His plea described him as a "political prisoner and a student activist" seeking to contest as an independent candidate from the Bahadurganj assembly seat in his home state of Bihar. The application sought to highlight the practical impossibilities of launching an electoral campaign from prison.

"There is no one to take care of and make arrangements for his nomination and campaign for the elections, except his younger brother, who is also currently looking after his ailing mother and providing for his family," the plea stated.

To bolster his case, the application cited legal precedents where courts have granted interim bail to political figures for election campaigning. Notably, it referred to the Supreme Court's order granting relief to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and a Patiala House district court's September 2024 order granting interim bail to Engineer Abdul Rashid to campaign in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly elections. These precedents were marshaled to argue that denying Imam a similar opportunity would infringe upon his democratic right to contest elections.

The UAPA Shadow and the High Court's Stance

Sharjeel Imam is an accused in FIR 59/2020, the overarching conspiracy case investigated by the Delhi Police Special Cell concerning the February 2020 riots in Northeast Delhi. The case invokes serious charges under the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code against 20 individuals, including Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi.

The stringent conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA have been a formidable barrier for the accused. The provision mandates that bail shall not be granted if the court, after perusing the case diary or report, "is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."

When the Delhi High Court rejected his regular bail plea last month, it underscored the gravity of the allegations against him. The court had previously, in a detailed verdict concerning multiple accused in the case, held that "violence in the name of protest is not free speech" and found Imam's role to be "prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy," noting he had delivered inflammatory speeches to instigate mass mobilization. This judicial view, which his appeal in the Supreme Court seeks to challenge, forms the crucial backdrop against which any plea for relief—interim or regular—will be judged.

Implications for Legal Practice and Undertrial Rights

The brief but notable legal maneuver in Imam's case offers several takeaways for the legal community:

• Strategic Litigation in High-Stakes Cases: The decision to withdraw and approach the Supreme Court demonstrates a clear strategy to avoid procedural pitfalls and place the issue of interim relief directly before the appellate court. This is a common tactic in complex criminal litigation where the hierarchy of judicial review is paramount.

• The 'Proper Forum' Doctrine: The episode serves as a practical reminder of the importance of selecting the appropriate judicial forum. Presenting a plea before a court that may lack jurisdiction or is subordinate to a court already considering the primary issue can result in unnecessary delays and adverse orders.

• Balancing Security and Democratic Rights: Imam's impending plea before the Supreme Court will once again test the judiciary's approach to balancing the state's security concerns under laws like the UAPA with an individual's right to participate in the electoral process. The outcome will likely be cited as a precedent in future cases involving undertrial prisoners seeking to contest elections.

As Sharjeel Imam's legal team prepares to petition the Supreme Court, the legal fraternity will be watching closely. The apex court's decision will not only determine Imam's ability to contest the Bihar elections but will also contribute to the evolving jurisprudence on interim bail, judicial propriety, and the fundamental rights of those accused under stringent anti-terror laws.