NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday dismissed the interim bail plea of JNU student Sharjeel Imam, arrested for allegedly giving seditious speeches during the anti-CAA protests.
Additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat said there was not sufficient ground to grant the relief.
The court had on January 24 dismissed the regular bail plea of the accused. It had also framed charges against the accused in the matter.
Advocate Ibrahim Ahmad, appearing for Imam, had argued that section 124 A (sedition) of IPC has been put on hold by the Supreme Court, hence it may not be considered in the interim bail plea. He had further argued that the other sections of IPC carried less sentence and gravity, and section 13 of UAPA was not attracted in the present case.
Special public prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for the police, had argued that there was no direction from the apex court for grant of interim bail in cases involving section 124 A of IPC.
The court said that there cannot be another bail application by the accused.
“There can only be one bail order on the merits of the case and this court cannot again pass an order on the merits, that too in an interim bail application. Otherwise, by this logic, there can be two bail orders on merits of the case at the same time passed by this court,” it said in the order.
It added that at this stage, the contention of the accused that section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was not made out and must be disregarded, was like revisiting the earlier orders on charge and bail, which was neither permissible nor warranted.
Ibrahim had argued that the accused did not incite any violence and had been falsely implicated in the case.
Prasad had opposed the bail plea, saying that the allegations against Imam were grave and serious in nature.Meanwhile, on Saturday, the court also directed the Tihar Jail superintendent and assistant superintendent to appear before it on August 1 on an application filed by Imam alleging that he was assaulted inside his prison cell on June 30. when eight to nine inmates, along with the assistant superintendent, allegedly entered his cell on the pretext of carrying out a search.During the hearing, the CCTV footage of the prison cell, in which Imam was lodged, was played before the court, following which the judge said prima facie it was not an assault.
To this, Imam’s counsel said that even pushing and slapping were within the ambit of assault.