2020 Delhi Riots: Court Denies Regular Bail To Shahrukh Pathan Who Aimed Gun At Cop

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts dismissed the plea, observing that the Delhi High Court had already declined bail to Pathan in October 2024 and there had been no change in circumstances warranting a different view.

The court said that when the High Court had refused bail earlier and the circumstances remained unchanged, except that some time had passed, it would not be appropriate for the trial court to grant relief.

“Accordingly, this Court is of the view that when the Hon’ble High Court has declined bail to the applicant/accused vide order dated 22.10.2024 and the circumstances have not changed, except the fact that almost one and a half years have passed, this Court should not grant bail to him even now,” the judge observed.

The case arises out of FIR No. 51/2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station in connection with the riots that broke out in North-East Delhi in February 2020. Pathan had allegedly pointed a gun at Police Constable Deepak Dahiya during the violence, an incident that gained widespread attention after photographs of the act went viral on social media.

Pathan was arrested on March 3, 2020 and has remained in judicial custody since then.

Seeking bail, Advocate Abdul Gaffar, appearing for Pathan, argued that the accused has already undergone more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which may extend to ten years. It was contended that under the principle contained in Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an undertrial who has spent more than half of the maximum possible sentence in custody should ordinarily be released on bail.

The defence further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and the trial is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence. With around 100 witnesses cited by the prosecution and only a few examined so far, it was argued that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Counsel argued that continued incarceration in such circumstances is oppressive and punitive in nature and violates the accused’s right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Anuj Handa opposed the plea, stating that this was Pathan’s eleventh bail application and earlier pleas had been rejected both by the trial court and the Delhi High Court. The prosecution argued that the allegations were serious and that Pathan had fled after the incident.

The prosecution also contended that the bail request must be assessed under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 436A of the CrPC. Under Section 479(2) of BNSS, the benefit of release after undergoing half of the maximum sentence cannot be granted if the accused is also facing trial in another case.

Accepting the prosecution’s argument, the court held that after the coming into force of the BNSS, the bail plea must be examined under Section 479 and the benefit of the repealed CrPC provision cannot be claimed retrospectively.

The court noted that although Pathan has spent more than half of the maximum possible sentence in custody, he is also facing trial in another case arising out of the Delhi riots. Therefore, he is not eligible for bail under Section 479 of the BNSS.

The judge further recorded that the Delhi High Court had rejected Pathan’s bail twice earlier and there was no substantial change in circumstances since the last rejection in October 2024.

The court also observed that the delay in the trial could not be attributed solely to the prosecution and noted that on several occasions the proceedings were delayed due to the conduct of the accused.

In view of these findings, the court dismissed Pathan’s bail application. "It is important to note that after dismissal of the previous bail applications of the applicant by this Court, the Hon’ble High Court has declined the relief to the applicant twice. Firstly, vide order dated 15.04.2021, the Hon’ble High Court considering the act of the applicant dismissed his petition and declined bail to him. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.10.2024, again the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition of the applicant and declined bail to him. At the relevant time, when the second petition of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2024 by the Hon’ble High Court, the case was at the stage of Prosecution Evidence and by that time five witnesses including the eyewitnesses had been examined and as such, as on date also, although all the material witnesses have been examined but the case is still at the stage of Prosecution Evidence and therefore, there is no change in circumstances. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that when the Hon’ble High Court has declined bail to the applicant/accused vide order dated 22.10.2024 and the circumstances have not changed, except the fact that almost one and a half years have passed, this Court should not grant bail to him even now," the court observed.

While Pathan had been granted bail on October 7, 2023, in a case related to causing injuries to several police personnel and inflicting a gunshot wound on one Rohit Shukla during clashes between anti- and pro-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protestors, he remained in custody as he had not sought bail in the case pertaining to pointing a gun at a policeman.