Delhi Court Grants Sharjeel Imam 10-Day Interim Bail in Landmark UAPA Riots Case

In a nuanced ruling balancing humanitarian considerations against stringent anti-terrorism laws, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Delhi's Karkardooma Courts has granted 10 days' interim bail to JNU research scholar and activist Sharjeel Imam. The relief, effective from March 20 to March 30, 2026, allows Imam to attend his younger brother's wedding ceremonies amid his over five-year incarceration in the high-profile "larger conspiracy" case linked to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. Despite Imam seeking six weeks' bail and prior rejection of regular bail by the Supreme Court, the court deemed the limited period sufficient, imposing rigorous conditions to safeguard the ongoing trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

This decision underscores the judiciary's occasional willingness to prioritize family obligations in grave UAPA prosecutions, even as higher courts emphasize national security imperatives.

Details of the Court's Ruling

Imam, through his counsel, had pleaded for interim bail from March 15 to April 26, citing his role as the groom's sole sibling and the need to assist with wedding arrangements, including the Mehndi on March 22, Haldi on March 24, Nikah on March 25 at Lucknow's Hyatt Regency, and reception on March 28 in Bihar's Jehanabad. He also highlighted spending time with his ailing mother, who is reportedly under treatment. The prosecution opposed, arguing his presence was not indispensable and arrangements were already in place.

Judge Bajpai, after verifying facts with both sides, allowed the plea in part. In his order, he stated verbatim: "Considering the facts as mentioned by the Ld. counsel and verified by the prosecution, the Court deems it appropriate to grant the desired relief to the applicant i.e. from 20.03.2026 to 30.03.2026 on furnishing of personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount."

Strict conditions accompany the relief: Imam must surrender by evening on March 30; refrain from media contact or social media use; meet only family, relatives, or friends; avoid witnesses or case-linked persons; share his mobile number with the investigating officer (kept active); and remain at home or specified wedding venues. The court clarified this interim bail is "purely temporary and humanitarian in nature and will not impact the ongoing trial" in the larger conspiracy case.

Background: The 2020 Delhi Riots and Larger Conspiracy Case

The case originates from the February 2020 communal violence in Northeast Delhi, which erupted amid nationwide protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, and proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The CAA fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from select countries, drawing criticism for alleged religious discrimination under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Clashes between pro- and anti-CAA groups resulted in 53 deaths—mostly Muslims—and over 700 injuries, marked by arson, stone-pelting, and widespread disruption.

Delhi Police invoked UAPA and IPC sections in a comprehensive FIR, alleging a premeditated "larger conspiracy" by student activists to incite violence, block roads via "chakka jams," and provoke chaos during then-US President Donald Trump's visit. The probe claims coordinated mobilization through WhatsApp groups, strategy meetings, and inflammatory rhetoric, transforming peaceful Shaheen Bagh sit-ins into violent blockades.

Imam, 36, from Jehanabad, Bihar—an IIT Bombay graduate, former software engineer, and JNU Master's holder in History and Philosophy—was arrested on January 28, 2020. Eight FIRs across states (Delhi, UP, Assam, etc.) accused him of sedition and UAPA violations over speeches urging "chakka jam." Courts granted bail in seven, noting no direct violence incitement, but he remains detained in the Delhi conspiracy case.

Sharjeel Imam's Alleged Role

Police portray Imam as a key mobilizer and ideologue. Allegations include:

- Administering the "Muslim Students of JNU" WhatsApp group for protest coordination.

- Attending conspiratorial meetings in Delhi's Jangpura to plan escalations.

- Travelling to Aligarh and elsewhere for mobilization.

- Foundational role in sustaining Shaheen Bagh's 100-day blockade of a major road.

Investigators assert his actions created "ground conditions" for riots, with liability under conspiracy not requiring physical presence at violence sites. No immediate violence followed his January 16, 2020, Aligarh speech, a cornerstone of the case.

Co-accused include Umar Khalid, Tahir Hussain, Khalid Saifi, Ishrat Jahan, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Asif Iqbal Tanha (bailed 2021), Shadab Ahmad, Tasleem Ahmed, Mohd. Saleem Khan, Athar Khan, Safoora Zargar (bailed on pregnancy grounds), Devangana Kalita (bailed), Natasha Narwal (bailed), and others. Recently, Fatima, Haider, Rehman, and Khan were released after 2,000+ days.

Judicial Trajectory: From Supreme Court Denial to Interim Relief

On January 5, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria rejected regular bail for Imam and Khalid, upholding UAPA's Section 43D(5) embargo: bail denied if prosecution material prima facie discloses guilt. The Court observed: "delay in trial and prolonged incarceration cannot become a ‘trump card’ for securing bail in cases registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)." It stressed personal liberty's importance but subordination to public order/national security, placing Imam and Khalid higher in the "hierarchy of culpability" than bailed co-accused.

This interim grant by the trial court navigates that precedent, distinguishing temporary humanitarian relief from merits-based regular bail.

Legal Analysis: Navigating UAPA's Rigors

UAPA's Section 43D(5) erects a high bar: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV, V and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application... if the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true."

Trial courts have granted interim bail in UAPA matters on compassionate grounds (e.g., medical, family events), as long as non-prejudicial. This ruling aligns, limiting duration to essentials (wedding) and ring-fencing via conditions. It echoes precedents like Safoora Zargar's pregnancy bail, affirming Art. 21's expanse even in terror cases.

Critics, including human rights groups, decry prolonged detention without trial (Imam: 5+ years) as violating speedy trial rights under Hussainara Khatoon. The SC's "no trump card" stance prioritizes security but invites due process scrutiny, especially in protest-to-terror linkages.

Ramifications for Legal Practice and Justice System

For criminal lawyers, this offers a playbook: Frame interim pleas on verified humanitarian needs, secure prosecution nods on facts, propose ironclad conditions. It signals trial courts' autonomy post-SC affirmance of charges, potentially spurring more such applications in UAPA dockets clogged by Delhi riots cases.

Broader impacts include renewed debate on UAPA's misuse against dissent—over 1,000 CAA arrests, many bailed except "conspiracy" core. Families and civil society criticize "Hindutva-instigated" violence narrative flips, urging trials. Speedy adjudication pressures mount, with potential SC interventions on undertrial rights.

This bail, though brief, humanizes a polarized saga, reminding that justice tempers security with compassion. Legal professionals will watch if it influences parallel pleas, like Umar Khalid's, amid evolving jurisprudence on protest culpability.

In sum, Judge Bajpai's order exemplifies calibrated judicial discretion, ensuring Imam's family moment without compromising the Republic's safety narrative.