The Delhi High Court Monday asked the Delhi Police to seek instructions on whether Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea should be remanded back to the trial court or not, after it noted that the trial court’s order rejecting the JNU student’s bail did not contain any grounds for rejection of the same.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh was hearing Imam’s bail appeal for allegedly making inflammatory speeches against the CAA, involving allegations of sedition under the IPC as well as unlawful activity under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
While hearing the parties, the High Court observed that the order passed by the trial court did not record any reasons and the bench cannot sit in appeal on an order where there are no reasons for rejection of bail. It thereafter asked Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, appearing for the Delhi Police, to seek instructions on the issue and listed the matter for hearing on February 15.
The bench while hearing arguments in the matter, further opined that Section 2(1)(o) UAPA, which defines unlawful activity, is completely different from Section 124A IPC which defines sedition. The High Court examined the definitions and said that unlawful activity would be activity which is committed against India, whereas sedition is committed against the “Government established by law in India”.
This story was originally published in indianexpress.com . Read the full story here