- Home
- न्यूजग्राम
- NewsGram USA
- India
- World
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Culture
- Lifestyle
- Economy
- Sports
- Sp. Coverage
- Misc.
- NewsGram Exclusive
- Jobs / Internships
Key Points:
Sharjeel Imam concluded his arguments in a Delhi Karkardooma Court. His Lawyer argued that he never supported violence and had no coordination with Umar Khalid.
Advocate Talib Mustafa said Imam and Khalid never spoke during Imam’s five years in JNU and met only once. He added that witness statements from that meeting did not show any discussion of violence.
Following the conclusion of Imam’s counsel’s submissions before the Karkardooma Courts, arguments from the other accused are likely to commence next week.
Following the January 5, 2026 verdict pronouncement of bail denial to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, Imam concluded his arguments before a Delhi Karkardooma Court on Thursday, January 6, 2026. Sharjeel Imam stated that he never supported violence, and had no coordination with co-accused Umar Khalid.
Sharjeel Imam’s lawyer Talib Mustafa presented Imam’s case before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts, arguing that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of agreement or connection between Imam and Khalid, which was essential for proving a criminal conspiracy.
Advocate Mustafa told the court that Imam and Khalid never spoke to each other during Imam’s five years in JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University), and that to establish a conspiracy, it was necessary to show an agreement between them, which the prosecution failed to provide. He also stated that the allegations of Khalid instructing Imam were false, and that during the anti CAA protests in 2019-2020, Imam consistently advocated non violence, never calling for violent demonstrations.
Further speaking, Advocate Mustafa argued before the court that there was only one instance of meeting between Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, and even the witness statements from that meeting didn’t prove any discussions of violence. He also mentioned that the allegations against Imam were that he wanted violence, riots and the killings of people, but there never were no discussions of violence in any of his meetings; on the contrary, he proposed non-violence.
The Supreme Court has stated in its verdict that the findings of the prosecution, taken cumulatively, displayed reasonable grounds that the accusations against Imam and Khalid were prima facie true under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The Court also added that prolonged incarceration could not automatically be grounds for a bail, given the serious circumstances pertaining to the case. “The remedy for stagnation lies in calibrated judicial supervision and directions for expeditious process, not enlargement on bail where the embargo is attracted”, it added.
Linked to the larger conspiracy behind the North East Delhi 2020 riots, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been behind bars for more than five years, awaiting a hearing. Speaking to NewsGram, Senior Advocate Sarim Naved, counsel to Gulfisha Fatima said that the Supreme Court, in its verdict, said that going by the Delhi Police’s allegations, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam stood on a different footing. The Court however, stated that it didn’t believe that the allegations of the Police were true, or that the accused proved to be guilty of anything, he added.
However, an extension of one year was provided to examine protected witnesses, and present credible evidence in the case to commence Imam’s and Khalid’s hearing, stated Advocate Naved. Further speaking, he mentioned that Khalid and Imam would be able to reapply for their bail after a year, even if the Police didn’t examine their witnesses in the stipulated time.
The Supreme Court however, has granted bail to Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan, and Shadab Ahmad. Following the conclusion of Imam’s counsel’s submissions before the Karkardooma Courts, arguments from the other accused are likely to commence next week.
(With Inputs from IANS)
(GP)
Suggested Reading:
