Delhi Riots- “His Picture Speaks Volumes About His Conduct On That Day”: Delhi Court Denies Bail To Shahrukh Pathan, Who Pointed Gun At Cop https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-riots-delhi-court-denies-bail-to-shahrukh-pathan-who-pointed-gun-at-cop-169524

7 Feb 2021 6:42 PM

“The accused is alleged to have participated in the riots and has been duly identied. His picture speaks volumes about the involvement and the conduct of the accused on the said day.”

The Karkardooma Court (Delhi) on Thursday (04th February)
refused to grant Regular bail to Shahrukh Pathan, whose infamous picture, showing him pointing a gun at a policeman, during February 2020 Delhi Riots had gone viral on the Social Media/Internet.
While denying him bail, the Additional Sessions Judge, Amitabh Rawat observed, “What is material is the gravity of the offence and the allegations against the accused which are quite grave.
And added to it is the conduct of the accused showing that he does not satisfy the triple test for grant of bail.” Case against Pathan The instant case against Pathan was registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 216, 186, 307, 353 & 34 IPC read
with Section 25 & 27 Arms Act.
The Special Prosecutor opposed his Bail Plea stating that on 24th February 2020 he was caught brandishing a pistol with
the temerity of ring and pointing it at police personnel HC Deepak Dahiya, who was deputed on that day for law and
order arrangements near Jafrabad Metro Station.
He further submitted that the sensational incident was captured by a Journalist in his mobile phone which became breaking news on all the news channels and news papers.
After the said incident near Jafrabad Metro Station, he had absconded, however, after a concerted effort; the applicant was arrested by the team of Crime Branch on 03.03.2020 from Shamli Bus Stand, Uttar Pradesh on the basis of secret
information.
The Car used for escaping from Delhi after committing the crime was recovered from Uttar Pradesh at his instance. One
Kaleem, who had given shelter to the applicant after his escape from Delhi, initially absconded but he too was later
on arrested.
The illegal weapon along with two live cartridges and the shirt worn by him at the time of the incident was also recovered at his instance from his home on 05.03.2020 during police custody remand.
Arguments put forth by Pathan’s Counsel The Counsel for applicant/accused Shahrukh Pathan submitted that he was arrested on 03rd March 2020 and has been languishing behind bars for the past 10 months despite the non -commencement of trial He further argued that the statement of complainant/HC Deepak Dahiya, in this case is, contradictory in terms of various news clippings and statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He argued that as per the complainant, he was never shot at,
in many of the interviews and thus, Section 307 IPC cannot be invoked against him.
It was further submitted that accused has been made poster boy by the prosecution without any basis. Court’s observations
Taking into account the allegations against him, the Court said, “The accused is alleged to have participated in the riots and has been duly identied. His picture speaks volumes about the involvement and the conduct of the accused on the said day.”
The Court further said that equally important in the present case is the conduct of the accused. After the incident of 24th February 2020, he absconded.
In this backdrop, the Court said, “Going by the conduct of the accused and the manner in which he absconded and was arrested later on, suggests that he is a ight risk.” Regarding Pathan’s Counsel’s argument that there are discrepancies in the statement of the complainant and most of the interviews of the said complainant, the Court opined that it wasn’t relevant for the purpose of bail as the contents of the charge sheet along with documents/annexures only have to be looked into for the purpose of bail.
In view of the above discussion, the Court was not inclined to grant the relief prayed for. Accordingly, the bail application
under Section 439 Cr.P.C of accused Shahrukh Pathan stood dismissed.