Delhi court reserves order on Sharjeel Imam's plea seeking bail in sedition case

Delhis Karkardooma Court on Monday reserved an order on the plea of Sharjeel Imam seeking statutory bail on the grounds of the period already undergone in a Sedition case He has been in custody since January 28 2020It has been argued by his counsel that Sharjeel Imam has already undergone a period of more than three and a half years This is more than onehalf of the maximum sentence in this caseAdditional Sessions Judge ASJ Amitabh Rawat reserved the order on the bail plea after hearing submissions of Counsel for Sharjeel Imam and Delhi police The court reserved the order till September 25Sharjeel Imams counsel advocate Talib Mustafa argued that the accused has undergone half of the maximum sentence therefore he is entitled to statutory bail under section 436 A CrPCHe has undergone the maximum sentence even without a trial Under section 13 UAPA has a maximum sentence of seven years He has undergone three and half years the counsel arguedOn the other hand Delhi police said that there are multiple offences not only one offence Section 436 A CrPC talks about only an offenceSpecial Public Prosecutor SPP Amit Prasad submitted that a concurrent sentence is an exception whereas a consecutive sentence is a rule In this way the maximum sentence he can be awarded is 16 years the punishment of which is restricted to 14 yearsThe SPP also argued that while granting bail the seriousness of the offences also to be consideredOpposing the submission counsel for Sharjeel argued that there is an infirmity in the submission of the SPPSPP has presumed that I would be convicted It is contradictory to the principle of innocence the counsel arguedWhat the SPP is arguing is postconviction I am under trial not a convict the counsel submittedI have undergone more than the maximum sentence without conducting a trial for most of the offences Only section 13 of UAPA remains against me which has the maximum sentence of seven years the counsel arguedAdvocate for Sharjeel argued What is SPP is arguing that If I have been convicted and the court is to pass an order on sentence There is a presumption of innocence of the accused until proven guiltyThe benefit of section 436 A is for undertrial prisoners and not for convicted The punishment I have already undergone can be cumulative once again the counsel questionedThe court asked the gravity is one of the criteria or the CrPC while granting bailIt is said that the proceedings related to the offence of Sedition are stayed and the maximum punishment in offences under UAPA is seven years He has been in custody since January 2020 thats half of the maximum punishment for the offence under UAPAIt is contended that the applicant has been in custody since 28012020 in this case and has completed a period of 3 years and more than 6 months under incarceration and has undergone incarceration extending up to onehalf of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the concerned offence by lawAdvocate Ahmad Ibrahim and Talib Mustafa have moved an application on behalf of Sharjeel Imam seeking his immediate release from the present criminal prosecution in terms of the statutory provisions contained in Section 436A of CrPCThe counsel submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 28012020 in connection with FIR of 25012020 PS Crime Branch registered for the offences punishable Us 124A 153A 153B and 5052 IPC and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967It is stated that the applicant was arrested from his hometown Jehanabad Bihar in this case on 28012020 and was produced before the Patiala House Court Since then he has been in judicial custody after police interrogationIt is further submitted that the investigation in the matter stands concluded and a final report or chargesheet against the applicant has been filed in this case on 25072020 for the offences punishable us 124A 153A 153B 505 of IPC and Section 13 of UAPAThe Court took cognizance of the speechesoffences under section 124A 153A 1538 and 505 IPC on 29072020 and Section 13 of the UAPA on 1912 2020 the plea statedThereafter charges were formally framed against the applicant on1503 2022 by Court under section 124A 153A 153B and 505 IPCThe Court had passed the direction effectively staying the operation of Section 124A IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom it addedThe High Court of Delhi on 31102022 directed that the trial be stayed in respect of material witnesses and only formal witnesses be examinedIt is argued that the Section 436A of CrPC is a wholesome beneficial substantive provision substantive one which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the ConstitutionIt is also said that after the stay of trial in the present case by the High Court in regard to the main offence of Section 124A IPC Sedition in light of the directions passed by Supreme Court in SG Vombatkere v Union of India on 11052022 the only offences remaining against the applicant relate to an offence punishable Us 153A IPC Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion race place of birth residence language etc and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years 153B IPC Imputations assertions prejudicial to nationalintegration which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years 505 IPC Statements conducing to public mischief which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years and 13 of UAPA Punishment for unlawful activities which is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven yearsIt is also contended that even as per the maximum punishment extending up to 7 years prescribed under Section 13 UAPA the applicant has completed onehalf of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the concerned offence by law and hence deserves grant of statutory bail under Section 436A of CrPC ANIThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever