[Delhi Riots 2020] “Entire case is a farce”: Accused Shahrukh Pathan tells Delhi High Court in bail hearing

During the hearing in the bail plea of Shahrukh Pathan, an accused in the Delhi Riots 2020, counsel for Pathan on Tuesday argued before the Delhi High Court that there has been no role attributed to him and that “the entire case is a farce”.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was dealing with the bail plea filed by Pathan in the case related to rioting and causing injury to police personnel, including one Rohit Shukla.

Advocate Khalid Akhtar, on behalf of Pathan, 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 argued.

Akhtar 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 contended.

Taking note of the submissions, the single-judge bench adjourned the matter till July 24 and directed the Delhi Police to file a chart indicating the role of Pathan and evidence attributed to him.

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 Surest 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