Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed Shahrukh Pathan, an accused in the Delhi Riots 2020 to approach the Trial Court for bail, in the case related to rioting and causing injury to police personnel, including one Rohit Shukla.

During the hearing, Advocate Khalid Akhtar on behalf for Pathan submitted, "The witnesses who so ever they state, none are eye-witnesses. It is only on circumstantial evidence or they're assuming that I am the one...there is no CCTV footage of the incident. All those named and identified in the FIR are out on bail and I am still languishing behind bars".

"Even in the order of charges, this entire case is fabricated and motivated. They have planted witnesses. In the first statement.... May I take the court through the facts of the case Lordship!", he contended.

Akhtar contended, "It is not the case of the prosecution that I had fired...The case against me is under S. 149 IPC because the shooter couldn't be identified. When I was arrested, they did not have any clue who the shooter was, they nabbed me and kept me incarcerated. Then they fill in the blank and add my name".

Counsel for the State highlighted the nominal role and the conduct of the accused. He said, "The conduct of the accused is crystal clear. There has been an occasion when a mobile phone has been found in his cell; there has been an occasion where he attacks the Assistant Superintendent of Police in jail; there has been an occasion where he attacks a co-inmate who then files a complaint against the assistant superintendent of the jail, that he has assaulted him. All the other accused who have been granted bail, they were arrested from their respective residences. This accused absconds himself and is arrested on March 3, after a huge surge team was gathered..."

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that there have been circumstantial changes in the matter and directed the accused to approach the trial court for bail.

"The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to move a fresh bail application before the learned Trial Court. The fresh bail application is necessary, on account of change in circumstances as certain important prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The view of the learned counsel is that the testimony of such prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions. This court is conscious of the fact that this bail application is pending since 2022, therefore this court requests the learned Trial Court to dispose of the bail application within a period of 1 month time", the court ordered.

Earlier, Akhtar had contended that there has been no role attributed to him and that “the entire case is a farce”. He had also contended that four other accused are there in the present case, and he is the only one not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and also not identified by anybody. “Despite that Pathan is behind bars”, he had argued.

Akhtar had contended that “The bail application and arguments on the charge were heard together. Bail was rejected on the ground that he is an accused in another case, and could be a flight risk. There are a total of 5 accused persons in the FIR. I am the only person who is neither named nor identified, all others are named and identified as well. I am the only one behind bars… This entire case is a farce”.

“No role is attributed to me…This case is full of contradictions. There is nothing”, the counsel had contended.

Notably, Pathan was denied bail by the trial court in December 2021. He then moved the High Court in January 2022 seeking bail.

It is to be noted, that Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in April 2021, refused to grant bail to Pathan, in another case wherein he is seen in a CCTV footage holding a pistol in hand and releasing open fire shots. The court had upheld the findings by the Trial court that Pathan had participated in riots and his picture spoke a volume about his involvement.

“The video clipping and pictures played before this Court have shaken the conscience of this Court how petitioner could take law and order in his hands. Whether or not Petitioner had the intention to kill the complainant or any person present in the public with his open-air pistol shots, but it is hard to believe that he had no knowledge that his act may harm anyone present at the spot,” the court had then said.

Case Title: Shahrukh Pathan alias Khan v. The State NCT of Delhi