He Can't Dictate How He Should Be Produced From Jail: Court On Delhi Riots Accused Shahrukh Pathan's Insistence For Separate Van

Dealing with an application filed by Lockup Incharge stating that riots accused Shahrukh Pathan refused to board in jail van saying that he will go in a separate van only, a Delhi Court has said that Pathan cannot dictate as to how he should be brought in Court.

Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat was of the view that in the absence of any specific threat from an individual, Shahrukh Pathan cannot ask for a separate van for himself.

Pathan was booked in FIR 51/2020 registered at Jafrabad police station. The FIR relates to an incident wherein Pathan was captured pointing a gun on a policeman, pictures of which had gone viral on the Social Media and internet.

"Since he has been brought in a van with separate enclosure/kharja where other under­trials in the same van cannot access the accused physically, this should suffice the purpose. In any case, when the accused Shahrukh Pathan is being produced regularly in the Court, he cannot dictate anyone how he should be brought in the Court," the Court added.

The Court also noted that there was no application from Pathan's counsel requesting a separate van for him citing any specific reason.

Lockup Incharge submitted that it will not be possible to provide separate jail van facility considering the resources for every accused person.

It was also prayed that Pathan be brought in Court in handcuffs. Furthermore, a hand written statement of Shahrukh Pathan was also filed in the Court stating that he does not want to go in a van with separate Kharja but a separate van should be sent for him.

"Let accused be brought in a jail van with separate enclosure/kharja on the said date. The present application is being kept pending till next date," the Court said while adjourning the matter to December 7.

The FIR involves charges under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 153­A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion etc), 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 188 (Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) 307 (Attempt to murder), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief), 120­B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of IPC along with Section 27 (Punishment for using arms, etc) of Arms Act.

Recently, seeking discharge in the matter, Pathan had argued that his intention was to merely scare the police officer by pointing a gun, but he had no intention to kill anyone.

Case Title: State v. Shahrukh Pathan

Click Here To Read Order