A Delhi court has rejected the regular bail plea of Shahrukh Pathan, accused of pointing a gun at a police constable during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The court said there was no change in circumstances since the Delhi High Court had earlier denied him bail.
A Delhi court on Thursday refused to grant regular bail to Shahrukh Pathan, the man accused of pointing a gun at a police constable during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The court observed that there had been no significant change in circumstances since the Delhi High Court had earlier rejected his bail plea, and therefore the trial court could not take a different view.
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of the Karkardooma Courts while hearing Pathan’s latest bail application. The judge noted that the Delhi High Court had already refused bail to the accused in October 2024 and the situation in the case remained largely the same even after the passage of time.
ALSO READ: 2020 Delhi Riots Case| Fabricated Chargesheet and Tampered Records: Court Acquits Six
“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 from FIR No. 51/2020 registered at the Jafrabad Police Station in connection with the large-scale violence that took place in North-East Delhi in February 2020. During the riots, Shahrukh Pathan allegedly pointed a gun at Police Constable Deepak Dahiya. The incident drew nationwide attention after photographs of the accused aiming a pistol at the constable went viral on social media.
Following the incident, Pathan was arrested on March 3, 2020 and has remained in judicial custody since then. The prosecution alleges that his actions during the riots were extremely serious and endangered the life of the police officer.
While seeking bail, Advocate Abdul Gaffar, appearing for Pathan, argued that the accused had already spent more than half of the maximum possible sentence for the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The provision allows a maximum punishment of ten years imprisonment.
The defence relied on the principle contained in Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). According to this provision, an undertrial prisoner who has completed more than half of the maximum possible sentence should normally be released on bail.
The counsel also submitted that the investigation in the case has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The trial has reached the stage of prosecution evidence. However, the prosecution has listed around 100 witnesses and only a few of them have been examined so far. On this basis, the defence argued that the trial may take a long time to finish.
It was further argued that keeping the accused in jail for such a long period is unfair and effectively punishes him before the trial concludes. The defence contended that prolonged detention in these circumstances violates the accused’s fundamental right to personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, the prosecution strongly opposed the bail request. Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Handa submitted that this was the eleventh bail application filed by Pathan and that several earlier pleas had already been rejected by both the trial court and the Delhi High Court.
The prosecution also highlighted the seriousness of the allegations against the accused. It was argued that after pointing the gun at the police officer during the riots, Pathan had fled from the spot, which reflected his conduct.
Further, the prosecution argued that the present bail application should be considered under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which has replaced Section 436A of the CrPC.
Under Section 479(2) of the BNSS, the benefit of release after completing half of the maximum sentence cannot be granted if the accused is also facing trial in another case.
After hearing both sides, the court accepted the prosecution’s argument and held that the bail plea must be examined under the provisions of the BNSS, which came into force after the CrPC was repealed. Therefore, the accused could not claim the benefit of the earlier CrPC provision 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 related to the Delhi riots. Because of this, he is not eligible for bail under Section 479 of the BNSS.
The judge also noted that the Delhi High Court had earlier rejected Pathan’s bail pleas twice and there had been no major change in the situation since the last rejection in October 2024.
“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.
The court further pointed out that the delay in the trial cannot be blamed entirely on the prosecution. According to the judge, the proceedings were delayed on several occasions due to the conduct of the accused himself.
The case has a long procedural history. In December 2021, the court formally framed charges against Pathan in connection with the incident. Later, on December 14, 2023, the trial court had also rejected his bail application, citing the seriousness of the charges and his conduct both inside the courtroom and while in jail.
Although Pathan had been granted bail on October 7, 2023 in another case related to injuries caused to police personnel and the shooting of one Rohit Shukla during clashes between anti- and pro-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protestors, he continued to remain in custody because he had not obtained bail in the case related to pointing a gun at a police constable.
In light of these circumstances, the Karkardooma Court ultimately dismissed the latest bail application filed by Shahrukh Pathan.
Case Title:
Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan v. State
Click Here to Read More Reports on Delhi Riots Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
