New Delhi, March 9 (NationPress) A Delhi court has granted interim bail to student activist Sharjeel Imam on Monday. He is currently facing allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) concerning the alleged conspiracy related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, classified as a “larger conspiracy” case. This bail allows him to attend his brother’s wedding and tend to his ailing mother.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai from the Karkardooma Courts approved Imam’s request, permitting him bail for a duration of 10 days, specifically from March 20 to March 30.

Imam has been in custody for several years, and he is accused of orchestrating protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) during 2019–2020, which allegedly led to the riots that occurred in North-East Delhi in late February 2020.

The Delhi Police asserts that the violence was not an impulsive event but rather a culmination of a pre-planned conspiracy involving mobilization, road blockades, and organized protests aimed at disrupting normalcy while drawing international attention during then US President Donald Trump’s visit.

This year, the Supreme Court rejected bail requests from both Imam and Umar Khalid in the “larger conspiracy” case, indicating that the prosecution's evidence, when taken cumulatively and at face value, provided reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against them were prima facie credible. This led to the enforcement of a statutory ban on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

A bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar stated that at the bail stage under this stringent anti-terror legislation, the court must only assess whether the prosecution’s narrative is prima facie plausible without weighing conflicting interpretations of evidence as would occur in a trial.

The apex court remarked, “The inquiry is limited to determining whether, based on the prosecution material as it stands and at face value, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellant hold prima facie truth.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court rejected the suggestion that Imam was being prosecuted solely due to his speeches and protest actions. They noted that the prosecution evidence positioned him as a pivotal figure in the initial stages of a mobilization strategy that led to the February 2020 violence.

The Supreme Court clarified that physical presence at the riot scene is not a prerequisite to establish conspiracy liability. They stated, “The prosecution's position is that the appellant’s involvement is foundational, functioning at the mobilization, organization, and strategy levels, and that physical presence at the site of the ultimate violence is not a condition precedent.”

While acknowledging the delays in the trial process, the apex court emphasized that the suitable remedy is to expedite proceedings rather than to grant bail where a statutory prohibition under the UAPA exists.