Tag: Sharjeel

Delhi HC to hear Monday Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in sedition case

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court will on Monday hear a plea by JNU student Sharjeel Imam seeking bail in connection with a 2020 riots case involving allegations of sedition.
The case, which assails a January 24, 2022 order by the trial court dismissing Imam’s bail application in the matter, is listed for hearing before a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh.
On January 30, the court had sought to know the stand of the city police as to whether Imam’s plea for bail could be remanded back to the trial court for adjudication as there was no ground mentioned in the lower court’s order rejecting the relief.

The bench had said since section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code has been kept in abeyance following the directions of the Supreme Court, it will have to examine the trial court’s bail rejection order while keeping in mind the other sections framed against Imam.
Last year, the trial court had framed charges against Imam under sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), l53B (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC and section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
As per the prosecution, Imam had allegedly made speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019 and at the Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019, where he allegedly threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the northeast from India.
In his petition before the high court, Imam has said the trial court “failed to recognise” that pursuant to the directions of the top court, the basis for dismissal of his earlier bail plea, i.e. the charge of sedition no longer existed and therefore relief must be granted to him.
On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court had stayed till further orders the registration of FIRs, probes, and coercive measures for the offence of sedition across the country by the Centre and the states until an appropriate forum of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.

[ad_2]
#Delhi #hear #Monday #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #sedition #case
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 9, 2023
HC set to pronounce judgment on plea challenging discharge of Sharjeel Imam, others

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court is set to pronounce its judgement on the plea of police challenging the discharge of Sharjeel Imam, Safoora, Tanha and others.
The trial court had discharged 11 out of 12 accused in the matter. The order of February 4 was challenged by the Delhi police.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma after hearing the submission made by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain and the counsels for the accused in the matter reserved the order on March 23.
ASG Jain during his arguments produced video clips relied upon by the Delhi police in the matter.
Jain had submitted that seven accused persons were identified through two video clips. He also relied upon the CDR of the accused persons which shows their presence in and around the area of occurrence on December 13, 2019.
On the other hand, Senior advocate Rebecca John, who appeared for Safoora Zargar, had argued that as per the Prosecution Safoora was in the muffled face, but still, she was recognised by the two witnesses.
She also argued that the CDR of the respondent Safoora is of no importance as she was a student of M Phil at the time of the incident. Her residence was at Gaffar Manzil in the vicinity of Jamia.
ASG Jain also submitted that the written statement and clips were produced in the trial court, the bench noted.

He also submitted that the screenshot field here was also part of the pen drive field along with a second supplementary charge sheet.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John contended that the person they claim is me is in clip 9. I (Safoora) am not in clip 3. The Persons in clip 9 in face cover. The question is how Safoora was identified.
The senior advocate also submitted that Safoora was not named in the FIR. No one identifed her.
It was also submitted that prohibitory order under section 144 Cr PC was not imposed in the Jamia area. It was imposed near parliament, not Jamia. In this situation how the assembly can be called an unlawful assembly?
It was also submitted that the First charge sheet was filed on March 30 20 against Mohd. Ilyas.
They (Police) didn’t say anything about the second charge sheet, she argued.
The senior advocate also referred to the statement of ASI Jafrudddin who stated he saw some boys during progress. The respondent here is a girl, not a boy.
In 2nd supplementary charge sheet first time I was named and made an accused. The DVD with them surfaced the first time in the second supplementary charge sheet, senior counsel argued.
I was not in the 42 people apprehended on the day of the incident and taken to police station Badarpur for detention, the counsel submitted.
The senior advocate also argued that the Safoora was identified by two witnesses who were staff of Jamia. They identified Safoora Zargar and revealed her name but they were not presented at the place of occurrence.
On behalf of Asif Iqbal Tanha, it was argued that the police had apprehended 42 people on the day of the incident. Out of 11 accused who were arrayed as accused only 3 were out of those 42. There is no answer about the remaining 39 people.
It was also argued that Asif was a student of BA Persian at the time of the incident.
The statement of ASI Dhaniram was recorded on 13 January 2023 after 3 years and one month after the incident.
The witnesses stated that he identified Asif from the photo. He identified him as he was speaking a lot and arguing with me, the witnesses stated.
On behalf of Sharjeel Imam, advocate Talib Mustafa argued that there is No photo no video in which I was identified and no statement, except in the third supplementary charge sheet
Disclosure statement has no evidentiary value, the counsel argued. He said that Assembly was around 3.30 PM. after half an hour the alleged assembly turned violent.
At around 3.51 PM Sharjeel left as his glasses were broken, the counsel argued. I was not there at the time alleged incident.
Sharjeel Imam has also filed his written submissions.
He has refuted the allegations of violence levelled by the Delhi Police. In his written response to the appeal moved by the Delhi police, said he is a victim of violence, not an offender.
The high court had not summoned the case diary. However, it was submitted by one of the counsels that the TCR and case diary may be summoned.
The trial court made some serious remarks while discharging the accused persons on February 4. Trial court records have been summoned in digitised form. The observations have not been expunged.
The Trial Court while not considering and weighing the evidence on record has proceeded to discharge the respondents at the stage of framing of charges, the Trial Court erred in not only holding a mini-trial at this stage but also recorded perverse findings which are contrary to the record to arrive at the finding that a case of discharge was made out against the Respondents, ASG had argued.
It was submitted that a bare perusal of the Impugned Order would reveal that Trial Court has proceeded to make observations on the merits of the matter.
Delhi’s Saket court on February 4, discharged Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar and other 8 accused in the Jamia Milia Islamia University Violence case registered in 2019.
However, the court had directed to frame charges against Mohd. Iliyas alias Allen in the matter.
The trial court had made serious remarks in the case. The court had said that the accused were made scapegoats in the matter.
The court had said that police had no evidence against the accused persons.
This case pertains to violence in Jamia and surrounding areas in December 2019. Violence erupted after a clash between people protesting against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the police. Sharjeel was granted bail in 2021.
A case was registered at Jamia Nagar Police Station in connection with the violence that broke out on December 13, 2019. Delhi police had made 12 persons accused in the case.
Delhi police alleged offences of rioting and unlawful assembly and Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 333, 308, 427, 435, 323, 341, 120B and 34 of IPC were invoked in the FIR.
[ad_2]
#set #pronounce #judgment #plea #challenging #discharge #Sharjeel #Imam
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 28, 2023
Jamia Nagar violence: Chakka jam not violent protest method, Sharjeel Imam tells HC

[ad_1]
New Delhi: Defending his discharge in a 2019 Jamia Nagar violence case, JNU student Sharjeel Imam Thursday told the Delhi High Court he only campaigned in favour of peaceful protest and ‘chakka jam’ cannot be termed a “violent method of protest”.
Imam’s stand came in his written submissions filed in response to the Delhi Police’s plea challenging the trial court order of February 4 discharging him and several others, including student activists Asif Iqbal Tanha and Safoora Zargar, in the matter.
The case concerns the violence that erupted after a clash between police and people protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the Jamia Nagar area here in December 2019.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma listed the case for hearing on March 23 after the investigating agency sought time on account of the ill health of one of its lawyers.
The court asked the respondents to file their written submissions in the meantime.
It also directed that the electronic evidence, including videos, be placed on record.
The trial court had in its February 4 order discharged 11 people in the case while holding that they were made “scapegoats” by police and that dissent has to be encouraged not stifled.
The police, in its revision petition, has said the trial court’s order is in the teeth of well settled principles of law, suffers from grave infirmities, and is perverse.

The police plea said the trial court got swayed by “emotional and sentimental feelings” and cast aspersions on the prosecuting agency. It passed “gravely prejudicial” and “adverse” remarks against the prosecuting agency and the investigation, the revision petition says.
In his written submissions, Imam said shouting slogans in favour of a particular means of peaceful protest in no way portrays his participation in the violence that ensued later.
Imam was accused of instigating the riots by delivering a provocative speech at the Jamia Milia University on December 13, 2019. He continues to remain in jail as he is an accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
He stated the protesters had assembled in exercise of their fundamental right to assemble peacefully as guaranteed under the Constitution, and in absence of any prohibitory orders, no culpability could be attributed to him.
“In his speech at AMU on 16.12.2019, the Answering Respondent merely stated that he campaigned in favor of chakka jam as a means of protest which by no stretch of the imagination could be called a violent method of protest,” he submitted.
There is no admissible evidence against Imam to show that he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly and that “he was a victim of the violence and had no active role to play in its culmination”, he said in the written submissions.
“The Answering Respondent is not to be seen in any of the videos adduced by the Prosecution nor is there any statement recorded by the investigating agency in which he is even named much less having attributed any role to him in the commission of the alleged violence,” it stated.
The fact that violence occurred during the peaceful protest at Jamia which resulted in Sharjeel Imam breaking his glasses is not indicative of the fact that the he participated in the said violence, he has submitted.
Imam also asserted that his CDR clearly established that he had already left the place of occurrence before the assembly turned unlawful and the allegedly provocative speech was delivered much after the alleged rioting and is subject matter of another case.
“(Imam) only campaigned in favour of a means of peaceful protest, not violence. The act of shouting slogans in favour of a particular means of peaceful protest in no way portrays the participation of the Answering Respondent in the violence that ensued during the protest,” he said.
The alleged disclosure statement by Imam, the document said, was not recorded by the investigating agency in the present case and even otherwise it has got no evidentiary value.
On February 13, the high court had issued notice to Imam and others on the police plea, and clarified that the observations of the lower court would not affect further investigation in the matter or trial of any accused.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, representing Delhi Police, has urged the high court to expunge the remarks made by the trial court, arguing that the case concerned an unlawful assembly turning violent and not the “right to dissent”.
The police said at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the trial court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and not go deep into the matter as if to decide the issue of conviction.
Noting that the accused were merely present at the protest site and there was no incriminating evidence against them, the trial court had said dissent is an extension of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions.
While discharging the 11 accused, the trial court had ordered framing of charges against one of them- Mohammad Ilyas.
The Jamia Nagar police station had filed charge sheet under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code against Imam, Tanha, Zargar, Mohammad Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Mohammad Abuzar, Mohammad Shoaib, Umair Ahmad, Bilal Nadeem, Chanda Yadav and Mohammad Ilyas.
[ad_2]
#Jamia #Nagar #violence #Chakka #jam #violent #protest #method #Sharjeel #Imam #tells
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

March 16, 2023
Discharging Sharjeel Imam, 10 others illegal, Delhi Police to HC

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi Police has contended before the high court that a trial court’s order discharging 11 people, including student activists Sharjeel Imam and Asif Iqbal Tanha, in the 2019 Jamia Nagar violence case, is patently illegal and perverse.
In a petition, the police has said the trial court’s order is in the teeth of well-settled principles of law, suffers from grave infirmities that go to the root of the matter and is perverse in the eyes of law.
The plea is scheduled to come up for hearing on Monday.
The petition has sought to set aside the trial court’s February 4 order that discharged the 11 accused in the case, holding that they were made “scapegoats” by the Delhi Police and that dissent has to be encouraged and not stifled.
The trial court, however, ordered framing of charges against one of the accused, Mohammad Ilyas.
An FIR was lodged in connection with the violence that erupted after clashes between the police and people protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in the Jamia Nagar area here in December 2019.
The police said the trial court not only discharged the accused, but was also swayed by emotional and sentimental feelings, casting aspersions on the prosecuting agency and passing gravely prejudicial and adverse remarks against it and the investigation.
“The trial court, while not considering and weighing the evidence on record, has proceeded to discharge the respondents (accused) at the stage of framing of charges. The trial court erred in not only holding a mini-trial at this stage, but also recorded perverse findings which are contrary to the record to arrive at the finding that a case of discharge was made out against the respondents,” the petition said.

It added that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
“At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction,” it said.
The police said the trial court’s order would show that it has proceeded to make observations on the merits of the matter.
“While exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, the trial court ought not to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities, which is done at the stage of trial.
“The impugned order is null and void, non-est and in the teeth of well-settled principles of law,” the plea said, adding that the trial court’s order “ex-facie is patently illegal”.
It said the trial court had erred in observing that the respondents were mere onlookers or bystanders and therefore, only the presence of a person at the protest site was insufficient to sustain an allegation qua the person being a member of such an assembly.
Imam was accused of instigating the riots by delivering a provocative speech at the Jamia Millia University on December 13, 2019. He continues to remain in jail as he is an accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
The trial court had said there were admittedly scores of protesters at the site and some anti-social elements within the crowd could have created an environment of disruption and havoc.
“However, the moot question remains — whether the accused persons herein were even prima facie complicit in taking part in that mayhem? The answer is an unequivocal no,” it had added.
Noting that the accused were merely present at the protest site and there was no incriminating evidence against them, the trial court had said dissent is an extension of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions.
It had said investigative agencies need to discern the difference between dissent, which has to be given space, and insurrection that should be quelled.
It had also faulted the police for failing to produce any WhatsApp chat, text message or other proof of the accused interacting with each other and criticised it for “arbitrarily” choosing to array some people from the crowd as accused and police witnesses, saying this “cherry-picking” by the police is detrimental to the precept of fairness.
The Jamia Nagar police station had filed the chargesheet against Imam, Tanha, Safoora Zargar, Mohammad Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Mohammad Abuzar, Mohammad Shoaib, Umair Ahmad, Bilal Nadeem, Chanda Yadav and Mohammad Ilyas.
The chargesheet was filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The chargesheet also included provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
[ad_2]
#Discharging #Sharjeel #Imam #illegal #Delhi #Police
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 11, 2023
Delhi HC to hear Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in UAPA case on March 15

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday posted the bail plea of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Sharjeel Imam in a UAPA case related to an alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 riots here to March 15.
A bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul deferred the hearing on the plea, which assails an April 2022 trial court order that rejected Imam’s prayer for bail after a request for accommodation was made by his counsel.
“List on March 15 at the specific request of the counsel for the appellant,” the court recorded.
The bench, also comprising Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, in the meantime, began hearing submissions on the bail plea of the Rashtriya Janata Dal’s (RJD) youth wing leader and Jamia Millia Islamia student Meeran Haider in the same case.
Imam, Haider and several others, including Umar Khalid, have been booked under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi that left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
The violence had erupted during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
Haider’s lawyer argued that although his client was managing eight protest sites and had “spoken” at several such sites, it was incorrect to presume that he was part of any conspiracy or strategy to incite violence.
He asserted that the accused’s specific role has to be ascertained to sustain a case under the UAPA and in the present case, his “pattern of involvement does not match” the prosecution’s version.

“What part of the chargesheet is attributable to Meeran Haider for the offence under section 15, UAPA? It is not sufficient to say you cannot differentiate between different accused,” the counsel argued.
It was also claimed that the speeches given by Haider were “political”, where he expressed his “discontent with the government” and “chose to express his anguish” but did not incite violence or rioting.
He was not calling for violence but was talking about the right to protest, the lawyer told the court, which listed the matter for further hearing on February 8.
Haider was arrested in April 2020 and the trial court had dismissed his bail plea in April last year.
[ad_2]
#Delhi #hear #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #UAPA #case #March
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 7, 2023
Jamia Nagar violence: Delhi cops move HC after Sharjeel Imam, 10 others discharged

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The city police Tuesday moved the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court’s order discharging 11 people, including student activists Sharjeel Imam and Asif Iqbal Tanha, in the 2019 Jamia Nagar violence case.
The 11 people were discharged on February 4 by the trial court, which said they were made “scapegoats” by police and that dissent has to be encouraged, not stifled.
The trial court, however, ordered the framing of charges against one of the accused, Mohammad Ilyas.
According to sources, the petition is yet to be cleared for listing before the high court.
An FIR was lodged in connection with the violence that erupted after a clash between police and people protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in the Jamia Nagar area here in December 2019.
Imam was accused of instigating the riots by delivering a provocative speech at the Jamia Milia University on December 13, 2019. He will continue to remain in jail as he is an accused in the larger conspiracy case of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
The trial court had said there were admittedly scores of protesters at the site and some anti-social elements within the crowd could have created an environment of disruption and havoc.
“However, the moot question remains — whether the accused persons herein were even prima facie complicit in taking part in that mayhem? The answer is an unequivocal no,” it had added.

The Jamia Nagar police station had filed the charge sheet against Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar, Mohammad Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Mohammad Abuzar, Mohammad Shoaib, Umair Ahmad, Bilal Nadeem, Chanda Yadav and Mohammad Ilyas.
The charge sheet was filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 435 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The charge sheet also included provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
[ad_2]
#Jamia #Nagar #violence #Delhi #cops #move #Sharjeel #Imam #discharged
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 7, 2023
Delhi HC adjourns hearing on Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in UAPA case

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday adjourned, to Tuesday, the hearing of former Jawaharlal Nehru University student and activist Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea seeking bail in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case related to alleged conspiracy behind the 2020 northeast Delhi Riots.
The violence had erupted while protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Due to Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar’s unavailability, the matter was adjourned.
A Delhi court, on January 4, discharged Imam with 10 other accused persons in a case related to the incidents of violence at Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019.
The violence had erupted after a clash between the police and people protesting against the CAA in December 2019.
Additional Sessions Judge of Saket Court Complex, Arul Verma, had passed the order.
He had held that the police were unable to apprehend the actual perpetrators behind the commission of the offence, but surely managed to rope in the 11 accused as “scapegoats”.

Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#Delhi #adjourns #hearing #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #UAPA #case
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 6, 2023
Sedition case: HC asks police to inform whether Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea be sent back to trial court

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Monday sought to know the stand of the city police as to whether a plea by JNU student Sharjeel Imam seeking bail in connection with a 2020 riots case involving allegations of sedition be remanded back to the trial court for adjudication.
The high court said there was no ground mentioned in the trial court’s order rejecting Imam’s bail plea.
A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh granted two-week time to the Delhi Police counsel to take instructions whether the trial court’s order rejecting the bail plea be remanded back. It listed the matter for further hearing on February 20.
The high court was hearing Imam’s plea challenging the trial court’s January 24, 2022 order, dismissing his bail application in the case.
Meanwhile, his counsel withdrew Imam’s interim bail plea as the court was taking up his appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying him regular bail in the case.
The bench said since section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code has been kept in abeyance following the directions of the Supreme Court, it will have to examine the trial court’s bail rejection order while keeping in mind the other sections framed against Imam.
Last year, the trial court had ordered the framing of charges against Imam under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), l53B (Imputations prejudicial to national integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of IPC and Section 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
“The other thing you (prosecution) will have to answer is what is the ground on which bail has been rejected?” the bench said.

As Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad said the ground is that charges have been framed against the accused.
“So what? That is not a ground. Where is the ground? You have to decide we are hearing appeal or fresh bail plea. There is no ground on the bail in the whole bail order. You seek instructions,” the bench said.
During the hearing, the bench said that Section 2(1)(o) of the UAPA which defines ‘unlawful activity’ is completely different from Section 124A IPC which defines sedition.
The high court perused the definitions and said that unlawful activity would be an activity which is committed against India, whereas sedition is committed against the “Government established by law in India”.
“This is the principle difference. Sedition is against the government established by law in India and it has nothing to do with unlawful activity,” the bench said.
While advancing arguments on the bail plea, Imam’s counsel said charges have already been framed against the accused and it was a case for grant of regular bail.
He said it is an admitted position that there was no overt act on behalf of Imam and the speech delivered by him rather than calling for violence, calls for non-violence as he says they will not burn down property.
He stressed the point that Imam has been in custody for three years now.
Imam had earlier sought interim release until the top court decides the constitutional validity of offence of sedition. The court was also informed that Imam’s plea challenging the framing of charges in the matter is also pending before it.
As per the prosecution, Imam had allegedly made speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019 and at the Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019 where he threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the Northeast from India.
In his petition before the high court, Imam has said the trial court “failed to recognise” that pursuant to the directions of the top court, the basis for dismissal of his earlier bail plea, the charge of sedition, no longer existed and therefore relief must be granted to him.
On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court had stayed till further orders the registration of FIRs, probes, and coercive measures for the offence of sedition across the country by the Centre and the states until an appropriate forum of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.
[ad_2]
#Sedition #case #asks #police #inform #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #trial #court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 31, 2023