Kareena Eugene
The Delhi High Court dismissed the bail Plea sought by Shahrukh Pathan, an accused in the North East Delhi violence, where he allegedly pointed a pistol at a Delhi Police personnel.
The communal violence in the North East of Delhi took place in February 2020. The Court denied Shahrukh’s bail after seeing the video submitted by the Police.
The Court said that, ‘the video clips have shaken its conscience on how Shahrukh Pathan could take law and order into his hands’.
The High Court stated that the allegations against Shahrukh are that he was a party to a huge crowd that had unauthorizedly gathered and pelted stones, petrol bombs and fired gun/pistol shots during the riots in February 24th 2020, which took place at the road between Jaffrabad Metro Station and Maujpur Chowk in North East Delhi amongst people from different communities.
Shahrukh had sought for bail on the grounds that the alleged incident had taken place on the 24th of February 2020, while the FIR was lodged on the 26th of February 2020, indicating a 50-hour delay in lodging the case.
Upon hearing the Plea, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said that it was hard to believe that Shahrukh Pathan did not know the act of firing a pistol in open air would harm anyone present there.
The Court also upheld the trial court order in this case. The Delhi HC observed that the trial Court has ‘rightly held that the petitioner is alleged to have participated in riots and his picture speaks volume about his involvement’.
Last year, a picture of Shahrukh pointing a pistol at an unarmed Delhi Police Head Constable Deepak Dahiya went viral on social media.
The Delhi Police registered a case against him under relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. He was arrested on 3rd March 2020, in Shamli district, Uttar Pradesh.
The Court said that it was not the case that Shahrukh was involved in alleged incident. On this, Justice Kait said that, “keeping in mind the gravity of the offence committed by Pathan as also the facts of the present case, he was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. It dismissed the petition accordingly while refraining to comment upon the merits of the prosecution case”.
