Sharjeel Imam Withdraws Poll Bail Plea From Trial Court, Citing Jurisdictional Strategy

New Delhi – In a significant procedural move, student activist Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday withdrew his interim bail application from a Delhi trial court. The plea, filed with the intention of contesting the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections, was retracted on the grounds that the Supreme Court, which is already seized of his regular bail matter, is the "proper forum" for such a request.

The decision, articulated by Imam's counsel before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai at the Karkardooma Courts, underscores a calculated legal strategy in a case laden with serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It brings to the forefront the complex interplay between an undertrial's democratic rights and the procedural hurdles inherent in navigating India's multi-tiered judicial system, especially in cases involving national security legislation.

The Strategic Withdrawal: A Question of 'Proper Forum'

On Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, representing Sharjeel Imam, submitted before ASJ Bajpai that the plea for interim relief was being withdrawn due to a "technical issue." He elaborated that since Imam's special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's denial of regular bail is currently pending before the Supreme Court, the apex court would be the appropriate venue to seek any form of temporary release.

"A regular bail plea is already pending before the Supreme Court and that the proper forum for the interim bail application should also have been the apex court," Advocate Ibrahim stated, framing the withdrawal as a matter of jurisdictional propriety rather than a surrender of the underlying request.

ASJ Bajpai acknowledged the submission and allowed the application for withdrawal to be filed, effectively closing the matter at the trial court level. The defense is now expected to move a similar application for interim bail before the Supreme Court.

Imam, a JNU scholar, has been incarcerated for over five years in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case (FIR 59/2020). He had sought interim bail for a 14-day period, from October 15 to October 29, 2025, to file his nomination and campaign as an independent candidate for the Bahadurganj assembly seat in his home state of Bihar.

Grounds for Bail: Democratic Rights vs. Stringent UAPA Provisions

The withdrawn application presented a compelling, multi-faceted argument for Imam's temporary release. Describing himself as a "political prisoner and a student activist," the plea contended that denying him the opportunity to contest elections would be a deprivation of his fundamental democratic rights.

The legal basis for the application was rooted in Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The plea highlighted Imam's prolonged pre-trial detention of over five years without a single instance of temporary release. It also emphasized his clean record prior to the current cases, arguing he poses no threat to society.

The application sought to draw parallels with high-profile precedents where courts have granted interim bail for electoral purposes. It cited the Supreme Court's order granting interim relief to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to campaign in the Lok Sabha elections and a Patiala House district court order from September 2024, which granted interim bail to Engineer Abdul Rashid to campaign in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly elections. These precedents were marshaled to argue that participation in the electoral process is a valid ground for granting temporary liberty, even to individuals facing serious charges.

In his plea, Imam submitted: “That since the applicant is a political prisoner and a student activist, he is willing to contest elections from his home state Bihar which is scheduled to take place from in 2 phases from 10.10.2025 to 16.11.2025.”

The application also touched upon personal circumstances, noting that Imam's younger brother is the sole caregiver for their ailing mother and the family's provider, leaving no one else to manage the logistical and procedural requirements of filing a nomination and running a campaign.

The Legal Backdrop: The UAPA and the Delhi High Court's Order

The core legal obstacle for Sharjeel Imam remains the stringent provisions of the UAPA. The Delhi Police's Special Cell has invoked the anti-terror law, alleging a larger conspiracy behind the 2020 riots that resulted in 53 deaths and widespread violence.

On September 2, 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the regular bail pleas of Imam, Umar Khalid, and seven other co-accused. In a detailed 133-page verdict, the High Court held that the alleged acts of the accused did not fall within the ambit of protected free speech.

The High Court's order stated, “violence in the name of protest is not free speech.” It found the roles of Imam and Khalid to be "prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy," noting that they allegedly delivered inflammatory speeches to instigate mass mobilization along communal lines.

This adverse finding from the High Court forms the basis of the ongoing appeal before the Supreme Court. It is within this pending litigation that Imam's counsel now intends to file the application for interim bail. This strategy avoids the potential for conflicting orders from different judicial forums and places the request for temporary relief directly before the judges who are already examining the substantive merits of his regular bail plea against the High Court's stringent observations. The legal question will be whether the Supreme Court is inclined to grant interim relief for electoral participation while the larger question of regular bail under the UAPA's strict conditions is still under its consideration.