Sharjeel Imam Seeks Interim Bail to Contest Bihar Polls, Citing Kejriwal Precedent in UAPA Case

New Delhi, October 13, 2025 – JNU scholar and student activist Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case, has approached a Delhi court seeking interim bail for two weeks to contest the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections. The application, filed before the Karkardooma Courts, presents a significant legal test, balancing an undertrial's right to participate in the democratic process against the stringent bail provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Imam, who has been incarcerated in Tihar Jail for over five years, filed the plea before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai, who is presiding over the riots conspiracy trial. He seeks temporary release from October 15 to October 29 to file his nomination and manage his campaign as an independent candidate for the Bahadurganj constituency in his home state of Bihar.

The case places the judiciary at the confluence of criminal procedure, constitutional rights, and anti-terror legislation. The court's decision will be closely scrutinized for its potential to set a precedent for undertrials accused under special statutes seeking to exercise their political rights.

The Legal Framework of the Bail Application

Imam's application has been strategically filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which governs the bail powers of the Sessions Court, alongside a notable reference to Section 483 of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This dual citation signals a forward-looking legal approach, acknowledging the impending transition in India's criminal justice framework.

The core of Imam's plea rests on the argument that denying him the opportunity to contest would effectively curtail his democratic rights. The application frames him as a "political prisoner and a student activist" and underscores his intent to participate in the electoral process.

"...it is pertinent to mention that the applicant is contesting as an independent candidate and is not associated with any political party. 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 states, highlighting the practical necessity for his personal presence.

The timeline is critical. The process for filing nominations for the second phase of the Bihar elections, which includes the Bahadurganj seat, commenced on October 13 and concludes on October 20. The polling for the constituency is scheduled for November 11. Imam's legal team has argued that his physical presence is indispensable for completing the nomination formalities and organizing his campaign, particularly as an independent candidate without the backing of established party machinery.

Invoking Precedent: The Kejriwal Case and Beyond

A pivotal aspect of the application is its reliance on recent judicial precedents where interim bail was granted for election-related activities. The plea explicitly cites the Supreme Court's order granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to campaign during the Lok Sabha elections. This reference is legally significant as it attempts to draw a parallel, arguing that the principle of allowing participation in the democratic process should be applied consistently.

Furthermore, the application refers to decisions from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court, which have previously granted similar relief to candidates. By marshalling these precedents, Imam's counsel aims to persuade the court that such a grant of temporary liberty is not an exceptional deviation but a recognized judicial practice in the interest of upholding democratic principles.

The legal challenge, however, lies in the fact that Imam is charged under the UAPA. The stringent conditions for bail under Section 43(5) of the UAPA require the court to have reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the person is prima facie untrue. While this high bar applies to regular bail, the judiciary retains discretion in granting interim bail on humanitarian or other compelling grounds. Imam's plea implicitly argues that the right to contest an election constitutes such a compelling ground.

Context: The Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case

Sharjeel Imam was arrested on August 25, 2020, and has remained in custody since. He is one of 18 individuals accused by the Delhi Police of being part of a larger conspiracy that led to the February 2020 riots in North-East Delhi. The violence, which erupted during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries.

The Delhi Police's charge sheet invokes several sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and, most crucially, the UAPA. While Imam has secured bail in other cases related to the anti-CAA protests, his incarceration continues due to the UAPA charges in this conspiracy case.

His legal battle for freedom has been arduous. On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed his regular bail plea in this case. An appeal against that order is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The current application for interim bail is therefore a separate, specific request tied directly to the Bihar election schedule and does not adjudicate the merits of the main case.

In his plea, Imam contends that he has no criminal antecedents and does not pose a societal threat. He emphasizes that he has never been released on bail, even temporarily, during his five years of custody.

Broader Implications for Law and Democracy

The court's decision on Sharjeel Imam's interim bail plea will have far-reaching implications. It will contribute to the evolving jurisprudence on the rights of undertrial prisoners, particularly in the context of their participation in political life.

Key legal questions the court may consider include:

• Scope of Judicial Discretion: To what extent can a court exercise its discretion to grant interim bail in a UAPA case for a purpose not explicitly defined as a humanitarian ground, such as contesting an election?
• Balancing of Rights: How should the court balance the fundamental right to participate in the electoral process against the state's security concerns, as codified in the UAPA's stringent bail provisions?
• The 'Political Prisoner' Argument: While the term "political prisoner" lacks a formal definition in Indian law, its use in the plea invites the court to consider the political nature of the charges and the accused's background as a student activist.

If the court grants bail, it could reinforce the principle that incarceration, particularly at the pre-trial stage, should not result in the complete extinguishment of a citizen's constitutional and democratic rights. Conversely, a denial could be interpreted as prioritizing the gravity of the allegations under anti-terror law over an individual's right to electoral participation.

The application is expected to be heard by the Karkardooma court on Tuesday, setting the stage for a legally significant order that will be watched closely by the legal fraternity and civil rights advocates across the country.