New Delhi: Student activist Sharjeel Imam is set to return to Tihar Jail on Monday after the expiry of the 10-day interim bail granted by a Delhi court in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the 2020 North-East Delhi violence.
Imam was granted interim bail by the Karkardooma Court from March 20 to March 30 to attend his younger brother’s wedding and care for his ailing mother, subject to strict conditions.
Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai allowed the temporary relief, directing Imam to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with two sureties of the same amount. The court also barred him from interacting with the media or using social media during the bail period.
The court further restricted him to meeting only family members, relatives and friends, and prohibited any contact with witnesses or individuals connected to the case.
Imam was instructed to keep his mobile phone active at all times and share his number with the investigating officer. During the interim bail, he was allowed to stay either at his residence or at the designated wedding venues mentioned in his application.
In custody for over five years, Imam had sought interim bail citing his responsibility in organising the wedding and supporting his family, particularly his unwell mother.
The prosecution opposed the plea, arguing that his presence was not essential for the ceremonies and that adequate arrangements had already been made. It also maintained that there was no urgent medical need justifying his release.
Imam is among several student activists booked under the UAPA and provisions of the Indian Penal Code over the alleged conspiracy behind the February 2020 violence.
According to the Delhi Police, the violence was not spontaneous but the result of a planned conspiracy involving mobilisation, road blockades and coordinated protests aimed at disrupting normal life and drawing global attention during the visit of then US President Donald Trump.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India rejected bail pleas of Imam and co-accused Umar Khalid, observing that the prosecution’s material, taken at face value, established prima facie grounds against them, thereby invoking the bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
