Delhi court rejects Sharjeel Imam's bail plea, says tone of his speech could hurt peace

NEW DELHI: The bail plea of JNU student Sharjeel Imam was dismissed on Friday with a city court saying that the tone and tenor of incendiary speech tend to have a debilitating effect upon public tranquility, peace and harmony of the society.
Imam was arrested for allegedly giving a seditious speech that resulted in violence during the anti-CAA protests in New Friends Colony in December 2019.
However, the court said the evidence in support of the allegations that rioters got instigated by Imam’s speech to indulge in rioting, attacking police, etc, at several places were “scanty and sketchy”. The prosecution claimed that Imam had delivered provocative speeches on December 13 and 15, 2019 and January 16, 2020.
The case in which Imam’s bail plea was dismissed pertained to the speech delivered by him on December 13, 2019, which allegedly instigated a particular religious community against the government by creating unfounded fears in their minds regarding CAB and NRC.
Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal said, “Neither any eyewitness has been cited by the prosecution nor is there any other evidence on record to suggest that the co-accused got instigated and committed rioting, etc upon hearing Imam’s speech. There is no evidence corroborating the version of prosecution that the alleged rioters/co-accused were a part of the audience addressed by Imam on that day.”
The court further said the essential link between the speech and the subsequent acts of the co-accused was “conspicuously missing”. “The theory as propounded by police left gaping holes, which leaves an incomplete picture unless the gaps were filled by resorting to surmises and conjectures or by essentially replying upon the disclosure statement of Iman and the co-accused,” said the order.
“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,” said the court.
Though the Special Public Prosecutor argued that the disclosure statements were relevant under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, it appeared to be nothing but a “desperate attempt” on his part to save the day for the prosecution, it was observed. However, the court said it was not required to enter into a meticulous examination of the material placed on record by the prosecution at this stage to unnecessarily prejudice the case.
The judge concluded that the facts and circumstances and considering the contents of that speech that tended to have a debilitating effect on the communal peace and harmony, he was not inclined to grant bail to Imam at this stage.
Interestingly, the court quoted Swami Vivekananda: “We are what our thoughts have made us; so take care about what you think; Words are secondary; Thoughts live; they travel far”.
It further stated the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression had been placed upon a very high pedestal in the Constitution and its essence was well captured in the statement of Milton who said, “Give me the liberty to know, to argue freely, and to utter according to conscience, above all liberties”. However, the very same Constitution places reasonable restriction upon exercise of the said right on the grounds of public order and incitement to offence.
Senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Imam, argued that he did not participate in the violence during any protest or demonstration as he was a peace loving and law-abiding citizen. No speech delivered by him aimed at spreading any disaffection against the government or inciting violence or ill-will against any community.