New Delhi: Delhi’s Karkardooma Court on Thursday reserved its order on the bail plea moved by Sharjeel Imam, who is an accused in a larger conspiracy case related to Northeast Delhi violence.
Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, counsel for Sharjeel Imam primarily based his submission on the argument that there can not be an endless or perpetual conspiracy and post his arrest in January 2020, the accused had no role in the violence that broke out in some parts of Delhi in February 2020.
Mir argued that conspiracy cannot be in perpetuity. “There is always a start and closing time of it. Any act which is done post objective of a conspiracy being achieved cannot be termed to be a part of the conspiracy. It is what the Indian evidence Act says. We cannot afford to have a system where conspiracies become endless and are rendered in perpetuity.”
He argued, “I would differ from SPP when he says that although Sharjeel got arrested and riots happened should still implicate him for conspiracy and that is where the flaw is. Even after arrest consequences of riots will not come against me.”
Opposing Sharjeel’s bail plea, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad said, “When a cricket team plays, every player has his own importance. In the sequence of openers, assuming one wicket is lost that doesn’t mean the intent to win the game is lost.”
He added merely because Imam was removed from the team by the event of his arrest in case FIR No. 22/2020, doesn’t mean that the entire conspiracy is abandoned.
On this, Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir questioned, “How cognizance of sedition and UAPA taken by the court for giving inflammatory speeches at Jamia and Aligarh Muslim University could be sustained in the main conspiracy of the Delhi riots case?”
He finally said when there are instances that demonstrate his involvement in a larger conspiracy. “He can be involved in the larger conspiracy and also speeches. The two things will go separately. It can’t be claimed that merely because he was charged in case FIR No. 22/2020, he can not be charged in case FIR No. 59. This FIR deals with larger conspiracy.”
Amit Prasad argued before Additional Session Judge Amitabh Rawat that Sharjeel was part of a larger conspiracy. “We saw his role right from December 2019 in the constitution of MSJ. We saw his close association with Arshad Warsi.”
“On December 17, 2019, Sharjeel participated at Jantar Mantar. Prior to that, there was no whisper of chakka jam in any of the messages or documents that have surfaced in the chat in MSJ between Imam and Warsi of SOJ.”
The SPP further submitted that Sharjeel also participated in a meeting at Jangpura. “He was part of the CAB team. On 9 December is participation was there in MSJ. On 11 December, he visited Aligarh Muslim University ( AMU) as per the chat with four members of MSJ and on the direction of Nadeem Khan.”
Amit Prasad also submitted there was a chat on December 11 where Sharjeel categorically said, “There is no need to do over secularisation of movement. On 13 December he made a speech at Jamia.”
Prasad said that on December 14, his participation was in Jamia. “There was discussion on a joint plan of chakka jam and roadblock. On the next day, there was a meeting at Dhaba in JNU to decide a further plan of action and decision to rope in PFI and other organisations. He visited Jamia and thereafter rioting at Sarai Julena took place where 10 police personnel were injured, 3 buses were burnt.”
He argued that in a planned manner Imam exited from Shaheen Bagh protest. “Though he continues to be a part of the background. It is reflected from the meeting of 10 February 2020 and his WhatsApp chats. The communal hues are clearly reflected from his Facebook post of 12 January.”
The SPP further said that on 15 January, the chat showed that Sharjeel went to the Khureji protest site and addressed the gathering.
“Therefore his participation continues. On 16 January, he went to AMU and gave a speech there. On 17 January, he visited Asansol in Assam. Similarly thereafter he went to Jharkhand. We have seen his speech,” said the SPP.
On the other hand, Defense Counsel Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir submitted that “we are here soldiers of justice and if the defense is scuttled down, then it’s one track road. At least the silver line in this is that your honour is there. That is the beauty of power vested with the court.”
Advocate Mir said that the prosecution is under an obligation to show that the agreement entered into within a time frame was an agreement to cause violence. “And in terms of his speech. He will also have to show for whose murder did conspire or be a part of the conspiracy.”
He said that to say Sharjeel conspired to instigate a riot and inevitable people died because every time in this country someone dies for his ethnicity, religion, the entire society dies.
He argued that the riots take place on 24 February at a place where even allegedly Sharjeel went once to give a speech, we are not to be driven by emotive considerations. “We will decide on merits alone. For Sharjeel to give speeches at various places against CAA and NRC with a clear caveat that we don’t have to resort to violence, how does the prosecution seek to sustain on larger conspiracy, I am only on bail at the moment.”
“Prima facie does the speech or meeting at Khureji by any stretch of imagination offers a case of criminal conspiracy to kill someone in riots, or to commit riots? Ki sahab zillat hai aap par agar danga nahi shuru ho. Did he say so? When did chakka jam become a conspiracy for riots? Recently there was a chakka jam in Delhi by political dispensation.”
He argued that the moment Sharjeel Imam was arrested, the case against him for conspiracy if any was over. “Post arrest nothing can be attached to him for conspiracy. This argument is good for bail and also for a charge.”
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Neha Khan | 
