‘No Role Attributed, Entire Case Is A Farce’: Shahrukh Pathan To High Court In Delhi Riots Case Bail Hearing

Seeking bail in a case related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, Shahrukh Pathan on Tuesday told the Delhi High Court that there is no role attributed to him and that the “entire case is a farce.”

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma was hearing Pathan’s bail plea in a case related to rioting and causing injuries to police personnel including one Rohit Shukla by an armed mob. He is facing charges separately in another case in connection with the pointing of a gun at a policeman.

Pathan's bail plea was rejected by the trial court in December 2021. Charges have already been framed against him in the matter. Pathan moved the High Court in January last year seeking bail. 

During the hearing today, Advocate Khalid Akhtar appearing for Pathan submitted that although there are four other accused persons in the case, Pathan is the only one who was neither named in the FIR nor identified by anyone and yet he was behind bars whereas others have been released on bail.

“The bail application and arguments on charge were heard together. Bail was rejected on the ground that he [Pathan] is accused in another case, that he could be a flight risk and that there were contradictions in statements which are subject matter of trial. There are total 5 accused persons in the FIR. I am the only person who is neither named nor identified and all others are named and identified. Their addresses are also disclosed by the victim and yet all of them are granted bail and I am the only one behind bars… This entire case is a farce,” he submitted.

Akhtar also informed court that the bail plea has been pending for 15 months now and that Pathan has remained incarcerated for three years and one month.

“No role is attributed to me. It is not their case that I shot the victim…. Examination of the main victim is complete. That is full of contradiction. There is nothing,” he submitted.

While adjourning the hearing to July 24, the court directed the Special Public Prosecutor for the Delhi Police to file a chart indicating the role of the accused persons, including Pathan, and the evidence attributed against them.

Earlier in February, Akhtar had submitted that there was a huge delay in conclusion of the trial.

Pathan had earlier submitted that there are various discrepancies between the time mentioned in MLC, when gunshot injury was allegedly caused to Shukla, and his statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.

It was submitted that Pathan has been in custody from April 3, 2020 and that the investigation is complete in the matter.

He also contended that since there are two cases registered against Pathan, the investigation agency had taken evidence from FIR 51/2020 and falsely implicated him in present case.

While denying him bail, the trial court had said that the CCTV footage of a nearby camera installed at the relevant location showed his presence in the mob.

The FIR was registered under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, etc.), 283 (Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) r/w 34 of IPC along with sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

Case Title: Shahrukh Pathan v. State