New Delhi, October 14, 2025: Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) scholar Sharjeel Imam on Tuesday withdrew his interim bail plea before the Karkardooma Court in Delhi, which he had filed to contest the upcoming Bihar Legislative Assembly elections.
The withdrawal came after Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, representing Imam, submitted that since Imam’s regular bail plea is already pending before the Supreme Court, the appropriate forum for filing a fresh interim bail application would also be the apex court.
The plea was withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application before the Supreme Court of India.
Background of the Case
Sharjeel Imam, a former JNU research scholar and student activist, has been in judicial custody since January 2020 in connection with multiple criminal cases linked to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) protests.
While Imam has been granted bail in several CAA-related cases registered across various states, he continues to remain incarcerated in connection with the Delhi riots conspiracy case, which invokes provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The case accuses him and several others of conspiring to instigate violence during the February 2020 Delhi riots, following nationwide protests against the CAA. The Delhi Police has alleged that his speeches were “inflammatory” and contributed to the spread of communal violence. Imam, however, has consistently denied all allegations, describing himself as a “political prisoner and a student activist”.
Details of the Interim Bail Plea
In his now-withdrawn plea, Imam had sought interim bail from October 15 to October 29, 2025, to enable him to contest elections from the Bahadurgan Assembly seat in Bihar as an independent candidate.
His plea stated that he wished to participate in the democratic process and exercise his constitutional right to stand for elections. He highlighted that the Bihar Assembly elections are scheduled to be held in two phases between October 10 and November 16, 2025, and that he was “willing to contest as a political prisoner representing the voices of dissent and democracy.”
Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, appearing for Imam, submitted before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai that since Imam’s regular bail appeal is already pending before the Supreme Court, filing a separate interim bail plea before a trial court was not legally appropriate.
Court Proceedings and Observations
During the hearing, ASJ Sameer Bajpai noted that Imam’s counsel had acknowledged the procedural irregularity in filing the plea before the Sessions Court. The judge advised that Imam’s counsel may file an application for withdrawal, which the court would allow accordingly.
Following the brief hearing, the interim bail application was formally withdrawn. The court recorded the submission that Imam intends to move the Supreme Court for the same relief, considering that the regular bail petition is sub judice before the apex court.
Legal Context: Regular vs Interim Bail
The distinction between regular bail and interim bail is crucial in criminal procedure. Regular bail pertains to a permanent release during trial, whereas interim bail is a temporary relief granted for a specific duration or purpose — in this case, to participate in electoral activities.
Since Imam’s regular bail plea is pending before the Supreme Court, his counsel argued that any interim bail related to the same case should be sought from that court, maintaining procedural propriety.
Imam’s Legal Journey So Far
Sharjeel Imam was arrested in January 2020 from Bihar after being accused of delivering speeches during anti-CAA protests in Delhi and Aligarh, which authorities claim had “seditious overtones.” He was initially charged under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sections of the UAPA.
In the subsequent Delhi riots conspiracy case, Imam was named as one of the key accused in the larger FIR 59/2020, which also includes student activists like Umar Khalid. The case alleges that the accused persons were part of a “premeditated conspiracy” to incite violence in the national capital.
On September 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court denied Imam’s regular bail plea, observing that the allegations under UAPA were serious and that prima facie materials indicated his involvement in the conspiracy.
Following this, Imam approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail. The apex court is yet to hear the matter substantively.
Political and Legal Implications
Imam’s decision to contest elections from Bihar and describe himself as a “political prisoner” carries symbolic significance. His participation would mark one of the few instances where an accused under the UAPA seeks to enter the political arena while still facing trial.
The withdrawal of his interim bail plea, however, does not foreclose the possibility of him contesting; rather, it indicates that his next legal move will be before the Supreme Court, where he already has an ongoing case.
Legal experts note that courts have occasionally permitted undertrial candidates to participate in elections under specific circumstances, balancing the right to political participation with the security and procedural concerns of ongoing criminal trials.
However, given that Imam faces serious national security charges under UAPA, the threshold for judicial leniency in his case remains considerably high.
The Way Forward
With the Karkardooma Court’s proceedings concluded, Imam’s legal team is expected to move an interim bail plea before the Supreme Court in the coming days. If granted, such relief would allow him to file his nomination and campaign in person for the Bihar elections.
Until then, Imam continues to be lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail, where he has been since his arrest more than five years ago. His incarceration and legal battles have been a focal point in the larger debate on free speech, dissent, and the use of anti-terror laws in protest-related prosecutions.
Conclusion
The withdrawal of Sharjeel Imam’s interim bail plea underscores the complex intersection of criminal law and political rights in India’s democratic framework. While Imam’s intent to contest elections reflects his continued assertion of agency as a student activist, his legal journey remains fraught with procedural hurdles under the UAPA regime.
The matter now shifts to the Supreme Court, where his pending regular bail plea will likely determine the course of his political aspirations.
As the Bihar Assembly elections 2025 approach, all eyes will be on whether the apex court entertains his interim request and how it balances individual liberty, legal propriety, and national security considerations in this highly publicized case.
Also Read
Supreme Court Seeks Finance Ministry’s Views on Sahara Group Plea to Sell 88 Properties to Adani
Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Discretion in S.K. Jain v. Union of India
