Strategic Retreat: Sharjeel Imam Withdraws Interim Bail Plea, Citing Jurisdictional Propriety

NEW DELHI – In a notable procedural development, student activist Sharjeel Imam, an accused in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, has withdrawn his interim bail application just a day after filing it before a Delhi sessions court. The application, which sought temporary release to contest the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections, was retracted on the grounds that the Supreme Court, where his regular bail appeal is pending, is the more appropriate forum for such a request.

The move, executed before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai at the Karkardooma Courts, highlights a critical legal strategy and underscores the complex jurisdictional questions that arise when multiple bail-related proceedings are active across different judicial tiers.

---

The Plea and Its Swift Withdrawal

Sharjeel Imam, who has been incarcerated for over five years under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), filed an application on Monday seeking interim bail from October 15 to October 29, 2025. The stated purpose was to file his nomination and campaign as an independent candidate for the Bahadurganj assembly seat in Bihar.

In his plea, Imam identified himself as a "political prisoner and a student activist," arguing that his participation in the electoral process was a fundamental aspect of democratic engagement. The application also cited personal hardship, noting that only his younger brother was available to manage the campaign and nomination formalities while also caring for their ailing mother.

However, in a hearing on Tuesday, Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, representing Imam, informed the court of the decision to withdraw the plea. The core of the argument rested on procedural propriety.

"Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, appearing for Imam, told the court that 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," as reported by Bar and Bench .

ASJ Bajpai acknowledged the submission, directing Ibrahim to file a formal application for the withdrawal, which was subsequently allowed. This strategic pivot shifts the focus entirely to the Supreme Court, which is already seized of Imam’s appeal against the Delhi High Court's denial of his regular bail.

Legal Analysis: Jurisdiction and Strategic Considerations

The withdrawal of the interim bail plea from the trial court is more than a simple procedural step; it is a calculated legal maneuver. Filing an interim application before a lower court while a substantive appeal is pending before the apex court can be fraught with risk. It could be perceived as forum shopping or could lead to conflicting orders. By consolidating all relief requests before the Supreme Court, Imam’s legal team aims to present a cohesive case, arguing both for regular bail and, potentially, for interim relief on the same grounds of prolonged incarceration and the right to political participation.

The central legal issue remains the high bar for bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The provision mandates 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 the accusation against the person is prima facie true.

The Delhi High Court, in its detailed 133-page verdict on September 2, 2024, which denied bail to Imam and several co-accused, held that their roles were "prima facie grave in the entire conspiracy." The court specifically observed that "violence in the name of protest is not free speech," finding that Imam's speeches were intended to instigate mass mobilization along communal lines.

This precedent from the High Court makes any bail application challenging. By taking the matter directly to the Supreme Court, Imam’s counsel can argue for a re-evaluation of the prima facie findings and press the argument that over five years of pre-trial detention constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, potentially overriding the stringent UAPA bail conditions—an argument that has found traction in other cases before the apex court.

The Broader Context: UAPA, Dissent, and Electoral Rights

This case is a significant flashpoint in the ongoing debate surrounding the use of UAPA against political dissidents and activists. Imam was arrested in January 2020 in connection with speeches he delivered during the nationwide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Delhi Police alleges these speeches were part of a "larger conspiracy" that incited the communal violence in Northeast Delhi in February 2020, which resulted in 53 deaths.

Imam and his supporters maintain that his detention is a punitive measure aimed at stifling dissent. The description of himself as a "political prisoner" in his plea is a deliberate framing intended to challenge the state's narrative.

The attempt to contest elections from behind bars also raises profound questions about the rights of undertrial prisoners. While there is no explicit bar on an undertrial contesting elections, the practical hurdles are immense. In his plea, Imam had sought to draw a parallel with the case of Engineer Abdul Rashid, who was granted interim bail by a Patiala House court in September 2024 to campaign in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly elections. This precedent suggests that courts are, at times, willing to facilitate an undertrial's participation in the democratic process, though such relief is far from guaranteed, especially under UAPA.

What Lies Ahead?

With the withdrawal from the sessions court, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court. Imam's legal team faces the challenge of a compressed timeline. The nomination period for the second phase of the Bihar polls, which includes the Bahadurganj constituency, closes on October 20. This leaves a very narrow window for his lawyers to file a new interim application before the Supreme Court and have it listed for an urgent hearing.

The Supreme Court is already considering Imam’s appeal against the High Court's September 2 order, having issued notice to the Delhi Police on September 22. The outcome of this appeal will not only determine Imam's liberty but will also have significant implications for UAPA jurisprudence, particularly concerning the interpretation of prima facie evidence and the constitutional limits of pre-trial detention.

Whether Sharjeel Imam gets to test his political fortunes in the Bihar elections remains uncertain. However, his legal battle has transformed into a crucial test case, scrutinizing the delicate balance between national security legislation, the right to dissent, and the fundamental democratic right to participate in the electoral process. The legal community will be watching the Supreme Court’s next move with keen interest.