A Delhi Court recently comprising of a bench of Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat denied bail to Shahrukh Pathan, the man who pointed a gun at a policeman during North East Delhi riots, in a case related to rioting, causing injuries to police personnel and gunshot injury sustained by one Rohit Shukla by an armed mob. (FIR 49/2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station) (State vs. Shahrukh Pathan)
The bench was of the view that the CCTV footage of a nearby camera installed at the relevant location showed his presence in the riotous mob.
The Court added that even according to his call detail record location, it was established that he was present at the spot. Pathan was also identified by Head Constable Deepak Dahiya in the case.
Facts of the case
The present application was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C of applicant/accused Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan for grant of regular bail in the present matter.
The FIR was registered under sec. 147, 148, 149, 186, 188, 153A, 283, 353, 332, 323, 307, 505, 120B and 34 of IPC along with sec. 27 of the Arms Act.
The injured person Rohit Shukla had given a statement that February 24 last year, there were two groups of people, one of which was shouting "AllahhuAkbar" and protesting against CAA and NRC. He also stated that the unlawful assembly turned violent and started throwing stones and one person held a pistol shot at him.
He also gave a statement that at another location, out of a violent crowd, a boy aged 24 to 25 years came out with a pistol and tried to kill him. According to the statement, it was alleged that the boy fired at the witness who had then received injuries.
Contention of the parties
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the statement/allegations of Rohit Shukla does not inspire confidence as his statement on different dates have marked discrepancies regarding the location and the identification of the accused. The statement of HC Deepak Dahiya is also suspicious as there are discrepancies in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and some of the interviews that he had given post riots. The trial is going to take long time and there is presumption of innocence of the accused. The co-accused persons have already been granted bail.
The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the bail application stating that initially the case was registered for the incident of riots and murder. However, it was felt that for proper investigation of the incident of murder of Vinod Kumar, a separate FIR needs to be registered and FIR No. 153/2020 was registered separately and the present case remained regarding rioting and firing on the incident at Maujpur Chowk.
Moreover, the CCTV footage camera of nearby spot was examined which shows applicant/accused Shahrukh Pathan carrying a pistol and firing from the same and running towards Maujpur Chowk alongwith rioting mob. As per the CDR in relation of the mobile phone used and recovered from the applicant, he was present on the spot. There was statement of HC Deepak Dahiya identifying the accused Shahrukh Pathan as involved in the case.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The Court added, "The statement of all the witnesses have to be taken at their face value and the accused can crossexamine the said witnesses on the aspect he deems it fit. However, the statements cannot be straightaway negated as agitated by the counsel for accused."
The Court had observed that it was not an ordinary case of individuals or groups committing an unlawful act.
The court disposing off the bail application remarked, "Moreover, the applicant/accused Shahrukh Pathan is not only involved in the present FIR but also involve in FIR No. 51/2020, P.S. Jafrabad. Accused had evaded his arrest in the riots cases and after a great deal of efforts, he was apprehended by a team of Crime Branch on 03.03.2020 from Shamli Bus Stand, Uttar Pradesh on the basis of a secret information. The illegal weapon and cartridges were recovered and TShirt worn by him at the time of incident were recovered from his house at his instance during police custody remand. Thus, the conduct of the accused, and was apprehended goes to show that he is indeed a flight risk and can tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. The charges are yet to be framed."
Read Order;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments