Sedition case: Sharjeel Imam withdraws bail application from Delhi HC

New Delhi: The bail application filed on behalf of Sharjeel Imam, accused in a sedition case, has been withdrawn after the prosecution raised the issue of maintainability of the application.

The Delhi High Court asked Sharjeel's lawyer to withdraw the application and granted liberty to move the trial court for bail in view of the recent judgement passed by the Supreme Court on sedition law.

The Supreme Court had recently directed to keep all pending appeals and proceedings with the respect to the charge framed under section 124A (Sedition) of the Indian Penal Code in abeyance.

An application for bail in a sedition case registered against Sharjeel Imam for alleged speeches against the CAA and NRC was moved at the Delhi High Court.

The Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order after recording the objection of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad.

The SPP submitted that in terms of the order of the Supreme Court of 2014 any such bail application would first go to the trial court and only if the relief is not granted, the accused can move to the High Court as the case is triable by a Special Court only.

The Bench after recording the submission of the SPP granted leave to withdraw the application and to approach the lower court to Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir who appeared for Sharjeel Imam.

The High Court has listed the main appeal against the framing of sedition charges for hearing on August 26, 2022.
The bail application moved by Imam through Advocate Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim and Kartik Venu had stated that his bail application was dismissed by the trial court because it found that a prima facie offence under section 124 A was made out against him.

It was stated in an application that in view of the Supreme Court's direction, the hindrance raised by the Special Court in the impugned order stands obviated, and observations surrounding the offence under section 124A IPC cannot be taken into consideration in the proceedings against the appellant pending the final outcome of the Constitutional challenges to the section. (ANI)