Delhi riots case: Court dismisses bail plea of accused who pointed gun at cop

Shahrukh Pathan had moved the bail petition before the court on the grounds of delay in concluding the trial and in view of the threats faced by him in the jail from officials

A Delhi court on Monday dismissed a bail petition filed by Shahrukh Pathan, one of the accused in northeast Delhi riots of 2020.

Shahrukh is accused of pointing a gun at a policeman during the anti CAA protest in Jafrabad area. (Representative file image)

The court also proposed to hold day to day trial once another accused Babu Wasim, against whom proceedings for declaration as a proclaimed offender has been initiated, is either declared a proclaimed offender or is produced before court.

Additional sessions judge Amitabh Rawat, while dismissing the bail application, stated in his order that, “this court does not see any reason at all to grant bail to the applicant/accused. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 CrPC of applicant/accused Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan stands dismissed.”

Shahrukh, who was accused of pointing a gun at a policeman during the anti CAA protest in Jafrabad area of north east Delhi, had moved the bail petition before the court on the grounds of delay in concluding the trial and in view of the threats faced by him in the jail from officials.

The court in its order noted that the bail application was moved by Shahrukh on October 14, 2022 but was not pressed by the counsel at that time and kept for consideration after the main eyewitness had been examined.

However, the court also noted that an application was moved on February 13 pressing the bail application in view of the threats faced by Shahrukh in the jail.

It was contended by the Counsel for Pathan, before the court, that Shahrukh had been in custody since March 3, 2020 and the orders on charge were passed on December 7, 2021.

It was further submitted that there has been delay in investigation by the police for which Shahrukh should not suffer. It was also argued that another accused Wasim was granted bail by court.

It was further argued that the statements of witness Deepak Dahiya recorded under Section 161 of CrPC are in contradiction with the statements recorded in the FIR.

It was also strongly argued before the court that Shahrukh is facing threats from the jail officials referring to two incidents of January 30, 2023 and March 3, 2023.

On the other hand, the special public prosecutor (SPP) strongly opposed the bail application stating that Shahrukh had earlier filed a bail application which was dismissed by the court and was also dismissed by the high court.

It was further contended by the SPP that there has been no delay in the investigation and pointed out that Shahrukh was also absconding and apprehended with great difficulty and the proceedings are presently stalled due to the process of declaration as proclaimed offender is being carried out against Wasim.

The SPP also pointed out that the argument regarding contradictions in statements had been earlier addressed by the court.

He stressed upon the fact that there is no threat to Shahrukh from jail officials by playing the CCTV footage which showed that he had blatantly violated the jail rules and is creating conditions to make up fictitious grounds for bail.

The court while passing the order observed that, “from the perusal of the entire file, it is very apparent that since framing of the charges, there has been no delay in trial on account of fault of the prosecution.”

The court further observed that, “it has to be noted that the date has always been given as per the choice of the counsels for accused who, despite the court asking for a short dates, had insisted by showing his diary to contend that he does have dates and date be given as per his diary.”

The court further noted that, “in all the footages shown, the accused Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan can be seen constantly arguing with the jail staff. Thus, the conduct of the accused Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan, as borne out from the footage played in the courtroom regarding incident of 30.01.2023 and 10.02.2023 and the recovery of the mobile phone, is completely unsatisfactory”

“The entire flood of applications moved by the accused does not inspire confidence and appears to be meant for the bail application. The conduct of accused in jail and allegations of harassment and torture, is only prima facie seen for the purpose of present applications as the Ld. Counsel had repeatedly insisted on this and claimed bail primarily on this ground”, the court added while granting him liberty to pursue his other legal remedies.