📷 Image Credits: The Hindu
Sharjeel Imam, a student and a former co-organiser of a sit-in protest against a new citizenship law, was granted statutory bail by the Delhi High Court in connection with a 2020 communal riots case involving allegations of sedition. This decision came after the High Court noted that Imam had already served more than half of the maximum sentence that could be awarded in case of a conviction.
The provision of default bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) aims to protect the rights of undertrials who endure prolonged incarceration while awaiting trial or investigation. This statutory provision sets a limit on detention in cases where the trial has not yet commenced. If an undertrial has been in custody for more than half of the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offense, excluding cases where the death penalty is a possible punishment, they are entitled to be released on bail on their personal bond.
In the case of Sharjeel Imam, the activist had been in judicial custody since January 28, 2020, as he faced charges of sedition and unlawful activities for making inflammatory speeches regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The court considered his time served while granting him bail, taking into account factors such as the nature of the offense and the applicable laws.
The Supreme Court has underscored the mandatory compliance of the default bail provision, emphasizing that this relief aims to safeguard personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In cases where investigating agencies fail to file chargesheets within the specified period, the accused are entitled to default bail. This provision ensures that undertrials are not unjustly detained for extended periods without trial.
Moving forward, the legal landscape surrounding default bail continues to evolve, with judicial precedents shaping its application in various cases. The Sharjeel Imam case serves as a notable example of how statutory bail provisions are interpreted and applied in the context of complex criminal proceedings. As the legal system navigates these nuances, the principles of justice, personal liberty, and the rule of law remain pivotal in determining the outcome of such cases.
