Sharjeel Imam Withdraws Interim Bail Plea, Cites Supreme Court Jurisdiction - 2025-10-16

Imam Abandons Sessions Court Bail Bid for Bihar Polls, Citing Supreme Court's Pending Jurisdiction

New Delhi – In a significant procedural move highlighting the complexities of seeking relief while a regular bail appeal is pending, student activist Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday withdrew his interim bail application from a Delhi sessions court. The application, which sought temporary release to contest the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections, was retracted on the grounds that the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum to hear the matter.

Imam, a prominent accused in the "larger conspiracy" case concerning the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots and charged under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), had approached the Karkardooma court for interim bail from October 15 to 29. His objective was to file his nomination and campaign as an Independent candidate from the Bahadurganj constituency in his home state.

However, appearing before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, Imam’s counsel, Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, submitted that the plea was being withdrawn for strategic and technical reasons. Ibrahim argued that since Imam's appeal against the denial of his regular bail is already pending before the Supreme Court, any application for interim relief should be directed to the apex court.

"Imam's regular bail plea in the case is pending before the Supreme Court, it would be the proper forum to seek the relief," Ibrahim submitted, framing the withdrawal as a matter of procedural propriety. The court accepted the request, allowing the application to be withdrawn.

This development effectively shifts the legal battle for Imam's temporary freedom to the nation's highest court, but it also places his electoral ambitions in a precarious position due to severe time constraints.

The Jurisdictional Conundrum: A Question of Proper Forum

The decision to withdraw the plea from the sessions court underscores a critical aspect of litigation strategy: the choice of forum when matters are simultaneously active at different judicial levels. Legal experts note that approaching a lower court for interim relief while a substantive appeal on the same case is pending before a higher court can be fraught with procedural challenges. It risks being viewed as an attempt at "forum shopping" or, at the very least, an inefficient use of judicial time.

The core legal principle at play is that the court seized of the main matter—in this case, the Supreme Court, which is hearing the appeal against the Delhi High Court's rejection of regular bail—is generally considered the most appropriate venue for any connected interim applications. By withdrawing the plea, Imam’s legal team has aligned its strategy with this principle, likely to avoid a preliminary dismissal on jurisdictional grounds and focus their arguments before the apex court.

The bail pleas of Imam and other co-accused, including Umar Khalid, were rejected by the Delhi High Court on September 2. The High Court, in its order, had noted that the "alleged inflammatory and provocative speeches delivered by the appellants, when considered in totality, prima facie indicate their role in the alleged conspiracy." The appeal against this decision is now before the Supreme Court, which has already sought a response from the Delhi Police.

A Race Against Time: Electoral Aspirations vs. Judicial Timelines

While the legal strategy is sound, its practical implications for Imam’s political aspirations are grim. The deadline for filing nominations for the Bahadurganj seat, which votes in the second phase of the Bihar elections, is October 20. With only a few days remaining, the chances of an application being filed, listed, heard, and decided upon by the Supreme Court in time are exceptionally slim.

Sources close to the matter indicated that the time-sensitive nature of the relief sought makes the withdrawal a high-stakes gamble. "Six days are left for filing nominations. If the application is not listed in the top court before October 20, then it will become infructuous," a source explained. This tight deadline illustrates the profound impact of judicial timelines on the civil and political rights of undertrial prisoners.

Imam, who has been incarcerated for nearly five years since his arrest in January 2020, argued in his plea that his participation in the democratic process was essential. His petition described him as a “political prisoner and a student activist” and highlighted the lack of family support for managing his campaign.

"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. His brother, Muzzammil, had already begun preliminary campaigning efforts in Bahadurganj, a constituency in Kishanganj district chosen for its demographic composition.

UAPA and the High Bar for Bail

At the heart of Imam's prolonged incarceration is the invocation of UAPA, a law that sets an extremely high threshold for granting bail. Section 43D(5) of the Act stipulates that bail cannot be granted if the court, after perusing the case diary and police report, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the person is prima facie true.

This provision effectively shifts the burden and requires the accused to demonstrate that the charges are prima facie unfounded, a difficult task at the pre-trial stage. It is this stringent condition that has led to the denial of bail for Imam and several co-accused by both the trial court and the Delhi High Court, despite his having secured bail in other cases related to the anti-CAA protests.

The Supreme Court's eventual hearing on his regular bail plea will be closely watched for its interpretation of the prima facie case against him and its stance on the balance between individual liberty and state security under UAPA. The now-anticipated interim bail application, should it be filed, will force the court to weigh these considerations against an undertrial's right to participate in the electoral process, presenting a compelling and complex legal question.

As the nomination deadline looms, Sharjeel Imam’s case has become a stark reminder of how procedural law, judicial timelines, and the application of stringent statutes intersect to shape the fundamental rights of individuals within the justice system.