High Court Issues Notice On Shahrukh Pathan's Bail Plea In A Delhi Riots Case, Status Report Sought Within Four Weeks

The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice on the bail plea filed by Shahrukh Pathan, the man who pointed a gun at a policeman during North East Delhi riots, in a case related to rioting, causing injuries to police personnel and gunshot injury sustained by one Rohit Shukla by an armed mob. (FIR 49/2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station)

Justice Subramonium Prasad sought status report to be filed within a period of four weeks while renotifying the matter for further hearing on March 16.

Pathan's bail plea was rejected by a city Sessions Court in December last year after the Court was of the view that the CCTV footage of a nearby camera installed at the relevant location showed his presence in the riotous mob.

'CCTV Footage, Call Detail Records Show His Presence' : Court Denies Bail To Shahrukh Pathan In A Delhi Riots Case

During the course of hearing today, Advocate Khalid Akhtar appearing for Pathan highlighted various discrepancies between the time in MLC when the gunshot injury was allegedly caused to Shukla and his statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.

He also submitted that Pathan was in custody from April 3, 2020 and that the investigation was completed in the matter. It was further argued that Pathan was not in a position to threaten or influence the witnesses and that the trial might take a long time, thereby seeking bail.

Khalid also submitted that since there are two cases registered against Pathan, the investigation agency had taken evidence from another FIR 51/2020 and falsely implicated him under present FIR 49/2020.

The Court therefore asked Anuj Handa appearing for the prosecution to file status report in the matter, adding that Pathan had already been in custody for about 1 year and 9 months and that the FIR did not involve offence of Section 302 and chargesheet has also been filed.

The FIR was registered under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), 283 (Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) r/w 34 of IPC along with sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

The injured person Rohit Shukla had given a statement that February 24 last year, there were two groups of people, one of which was shouting "Allah­hu­Akbar" and protesting against CAA and NRC. He also stated that the unlawful assembly turned violent and started throwing stones and one person held a pistol shot at him.

He also gave a statement that at another location, out of a violent crowd, a boy aged 24­ to 25 years came out with pistol and tried to kill him. According to the statement, it was alleged that the boy fired at the witness who had then received injuries.

Case Title: Shahrukh Pathan v. State