Delhi High Court issues notice in bail plea filed by Former Congress MLA Asif Mohd Khan

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Delhi Police in the bail plea filed by former Congress MLA Asif Mohd. Khan who was recently arrested for misbehaving with Delhi Police in the Shaheen Bagh area.

The single-judge bench listed the matter for further hearing on March 6.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta appearing for Khan submitted that he has sought regular bail. He contended that Khan's bail plea was dismissed by the trial court in another similar matter, and the same is pending before another bench of the High Court.

Notably, on January 28, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sonu Agnihotri of the Saket Court dismissed Khan's bail plea, while observing, “If law enforcers are attacked /abused and accused are released on bail, it will send the wrong signal in society. To my mind, in these circumstances, the bail application of accused Asif Mohammad Khan does not deserve to be allowed and is accordingly dismissed”.

In the trial court hearing, Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta appearing for Khan had contended that a false case was filed against him to keep him in custody because he raised social issues against the police, and the police are adamant about keeping him in custody for one reason or another.

It was argued that no offence under Section 353 of IPC was made out against Khan as it requires assault or the use of criminal force, which was not present in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He had also contended that the remaining offences under Section 186 and 341 IPC, were bailable and claimed that Khan had been detained in the present case for more than three weeks.

Furthermore, he had submitted that no compliance of Section 41 and 41A CrPC was done by police and that the data of pending cases filed by IO in reply to Khan's bail application was incorrect, and that only three cases were currently pending against him, while in the rest he had either been acquitted or discharged.

On the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor Nischal Singh had vehemently opposed the grant of bail and submitted that Khan had been consistent in attacking government officials on duty and there were three recent cases including the present one concerning obstruction of public servants in discharge of their official duties were pending. He had contended that an attack on law enforcers is a depreciable act.

It was argued that Khan stopped complainant, Dharampal on his way out of the scene of the crime without his consent, uttered objectionable words, attempted to incite the public at large, and used criminal force against him squarely, bringing his actions within the purview of Section 353 IPC, which was a non-bailable offence. The APP had also argued that Section 41 (1)(e) CrPC allows for the arrest of a person without a warrant or order from a Magistrate, and thus the accused was not protected under Section 41A CrPC. Furthermore, he had contended that Khan was recently released on bail, but he misused his freedom to commit another crime, hence he should not be granted bail.

During the arguments, Khan’s video was played before the court. On perusal of the videos, the court had stated that his behavior appeared to show that he had “no regard for the law” and “considered himself above the law”.

“The manner in which he is seen speaking with police officials is depreciable. Whatever cause may be available to a person against Government Officials, he is not expected to take law unto in his own hands and misbehave and mishandle Government Officials who are discharging their official duties”, the court had said.

The court had further said, “I am of the view that as per averments in FIR, accused stopped the way of complainant Ct. Dharampal while he was going from a place of occurrence without his consent, threatened him, used objectionable words, and tried to incite public at large and hence can be said to have used criminal force against the complainant squarely bringing act of accused within purview of Section 353 IPC”.

The court had noted that the Delhi Police had filed the wrong involvement or non-updated involvements reports of Khan. Accordingly, the court while dismissing the bail plea had directed, “Issue show cause notice to IO SI Ashish Sharma and SHO PS Shaheen Bagh U/sec 177 IPC to show cause as to why they should not be convicted and punished for furnishing false information to this court regarding previous involvement of accused through DCP, South-East for 10.02.2023”.

Case Title: Asif Mohd. Khan v. State of NCT of Delhi

Statue: The Indian Penal Code; The Code of Criminal Procedure