Bail denied to Sharjeel Imam, who conspired to cut Northeast from India during anti-CAA protests

A Delhi court Friday dismissed the bail plea of JNU student Sharjeel Imam, arrested for allegedly making inflammatory speeches and inciting violence in Jamia Nagar area in 2019, observing that the contents of his speech “tend to have a debilitating effect on the communal peace and harmony”. The Judge also quoted Swami Vivekanand in the order & said, "We're what our thoughts have made us; so take care about what you think; Words are secondary; Thoughts live; they travel far"

 

 

Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Aggarwal in his order stated that a “cursory and plain reading of the speech dated 13.12.2019 reveals that same is clearly on communal/divisive lines”. “In my view, the tone and tenor of the incendiary speech tends to have a debilitating effect upon public tranquility, peace and harmony of the society,” the court said.

 

 

On December 15, 2019, a mob consisting of over 3,000 people attacked police personnel and torched several vehicles in the Jamia Nagar area during a demonstration against the Citizenship Amendment Bill. The prosecution had claimed that the mob was instigated by Imam’s speeches made against CAA-NRC outside Jamia Millia Islamia University.

 

 

 

The court, however, observed that the evidence that rioters got incited by his speech and indulged in acts of rioting “is scanty and sketchy”. “Neither any eye witness has been cited by prosecution nor there is any other evidence on record to suggest that co-accused got instigated and committed the alleged act of rioting etc upon hearing the speech of applicant/accused Sharjeel Imam. Further, there is no evidence corroborating the version of prosecution that alleged rioteers/co-accused were a part of the audience addressed by applicant/accused Sharjeel Imam on 13.12.2019,” the order read.

 

 

The court said that the theory as propounded by the investigating agency “leaves gaping holes which leaves an incomplete picture unless the gaps are filled by resorting to surmises and conjectures or by essentially replying upon the disclosure statement of accused Sharjeel Iman and co-accused.”

 

“In either case, it is not legally permissible to build the edifice of the prosecution version upon the foundation of imagination or upon inadmissible confession before a police officer. Once the legally impermissible foundation of imaginative thinking and disclosure statement of accused/co-accused is removed, the prosecution version on this count appears to be crumbling like a house of cards,” the court said.

.

.