CJP protests: Why were the Supreme Court lawyers released by Delhi Police? Here's what CJI Surya Kant said

Delhi’s high court ruled on Saturday that student activist Sharjeel Imam had violated the terms of his interim bail following concerns raised by the Delhi Police. The court, however, did not annul the bail, noting that it was set to expire the same day. Imam’s interim bail, granted on September 22, was intended to allow him to attend his cousin’s wedding, which took place between October 4 and 10.

The conditions of his bail included a prohibition on using social media or interacting with the media. The police argued that Imam had clearly breached this condition by being seen on a news channel interacting with media personnel at his residence during his temporary release. They contended that this was a deliberate and wilful violation of the court’s restrictions.

The police had filed an application on Friday seeking to cancel Imam’s interim bail in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, alleging that he had played a key role in orchestrating the riots that left 53 people dead and hundreds injured. Imam was arrested on January 28, 2020, and charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The police have maintained that Imam had misused the freedom granted to him by the court, prompting their request for bail cancellation. On July 5, Additional Sessions Judge ASJ Bajpai dismissed fresh bail applications submitted by Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid, citing a January 5 Supreme Court order that denied them bail and set conditions for their applications to be reconsidered.

The two had argued for bail, drawing on a May 18 Supreme Court judgment which granted bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi in a narco-terror case. This ruling had been challenged by a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, who expressed "serious reservations" about the reasoning employed in the January 5 order. The trial court stated that the apparent discrepancies between the two Supreme Court decisions had been referred to a larger bench, implying that the fresh bail applications would not be evaluated until this matter was addressed.