Sharjeel Imam Withdraws Bail, to Approach Supreme Court

Sharjeel Imam Withdraws Interim Bail Plea in Delhi Court, Plans to Move Supreme Court Ahead of Bihar Elections

Former JNU Student Facing UAPA and Sedition Charges Seeks Relief to Enter Poll Campaign

Delhi Court Notes Serious Allegations; Imam to Challenge Bail Denial Before Apex Court

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 14, 2025:

The legal battle of Sharjeel Imam, a former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student and activist, took a new turn this week when he withdrew his interim bail plea from a Delhi court. Imam, who has been in custody since January 2020 in connection with multiple cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sedition charges, had sought temporary bail to campaign in the upcoming Bihar Assembly elections.

The Delhi court, however, indicated that it was not inclined to grant relief given the seriousness of the allegations against him. Following this, Imam’s counsel withdrew the plea, announcing that he would now approach the Supreme Court of India for relief.

Background of the Case

Sharjeel Imam was arrested in January 2020 after his speeches during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests were alleged to have incited violence and contributed to the Delhi riots of February 2020. He has been charged under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sedition, and under the stringent UAPA, which makes bail difficult to obtain.

Over the past five years, Imam has filed multiple bail applications, but courts have consistently denied relief, citing the gravity of the charges and the ongoing trial. His latest plea was not for regular bail but for interim bail, specifically to allow him to campaign in his home state of Bihar, where Assembly elections are scheduled later this year.

Delhi Court’s Observations

The Delhi court, while hearing Imam’s plea, observed that:

The charges against him are serious in nature, involving allegations of conspiracy and incitement.
Granting interim bail for election campaigning could set a problematic precedent, especially in cases involving national security laws like UAPA.
The right to contest elections is not an absolute fundamental right and is subject to statutory restrictions.

Given these factors, the court was not inclined to grant relief. Imam’s counsel then withdrew the plea, stating that the matter would be taken up before the Supreme Court.

Imam’s Argument

Imam’s legal team argued that:

He has been in custody for nearly five years without trial being concluded, which violates his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
His speeches, though critical of government policies, did not amount to incitement of violence and should be protected under free speech.
Denying him interim bail effectively prevents him from exercising his democratic right to participate in elections.

They also pointed out that several co-accused in related cases have already been granted bail, and that Imam should not be treated differently.

Political Context

Imam’s decision to seek bail specifically to campaign in the Bihar Assembly elections has added a political dimension to his legal battle. Bihar is his home state, and his entry into the electoral fray could energize sections of the electorate, particularly those opposed to the CAA and NRC.

However, his candidacy would also be controversial, given the serious charges pending against him. Political analysts suggest that Imam’s move could polarize voters and spark debates about the role of dissenters and activists in mainstream politics.

Moving to the Supreme Court

By withdrawing his plea from the Delhi court, Imam has cleared the way to approach the Supreme Court, which has the authority to grant bail in exceptional circumstances. His legal team is expected to argue that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment, which the apex court has previously held to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s decision will be closely watched, as it could set an important precedent on the balance between national security concerns and individual rights. If the court grants him bail, it may open the door for other activists facing similar charges to seek relief.

Broader Legal Debate

The case raises several important legal questions:

Right to contest elections: Is the denial of bail to a candidate effectively a denial of their democratic rights?
Prolonged detention: How long can an undertrial be kept in custody without the trial being concluded?
Free speech vs. hate speech: Where should the line be drawn between legitimate dissent and speech that incites violence?
Equality before law: Should activists like Imam be treated differently from other accused, given the political nature of their alleged offences?

Legal experts are divided. Some argue that Imam’s prolonged detention is unjust and undermines democratic values. Others contend that the charges against him are too serious to allow leniency.

Public Reactions

The case has sparked strong reactions across the political spectrum:

Supporters of Imam see him as a victim of political vendetta and argue that his incarceration is meant to silence dissent.
Critics argue that his speeches were inflammatory and that granting him bail would embolden others to make divisive statements under the guise of free speech.
Neutral observers emphasize the need for the judiciary to strike a balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining public order.

On social media, the news of Imam’s withdrawal of his plea trended widely, with hashtags both supporting and opposing him.

Possible Outcomes

The Supreme Court now holds the key to Imam’s immediate future. Possible scenarios include:

Grant of bail: Imam could be released in time to campaign in Bihar, marking a significant victory for his supporters.
Denial of bail: He would remain in custody, unable to participate in the polls, reinforcing the state’s position on the seriousness of the charges.
Conditional bail: The court could grant bail with strict conditions, such as restrictions on public speeches or travel.

Each outcome would have significant legal and political implications.

Conclusion

Sharjeel Imam’s decision to withdraw his interim bail plea from the Delhi court and approach the Supreme Court underscores the high stakes of his legal and political battle. At its core, the case is not just about one individual but about the broader questions of free speech, dissent, electoral rights, and the limits of state power.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear his plea, the outcome will be closely watched by legal experts, political observers, and citizens alike. Whether Imam is granted bail or continues to remain behind bars, the case will remain a defining moment in India’s ongoing debate over democracy, dissent, and the rule of law.