0

Delhi’s Karkardooma Court grants regular bail to Shahrukh Pathan who was accused in Delhi riots, but to remain in custody

Title: State v. Salman & Ors. 

Decided on: 7th october 2023 

I.A. No. 06- 2023 (Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan) SC No. 100-2021 FIR No. 49/20 

Coram: S H. AMITABH RAWAT 

 

Introduction  

The court of SH. AMITABH RAWAT, Additional Sessions Judge (SHAHDARA), Karkardooma Court, Delhi has grated bail to shahrukh pathan who was accused under sections 147, 148, 186, 216 of IPC and section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. The accused being charged under section 307 & 353 of IPC in another case will still remain in custody. 

Facts of the case  

A riot broke out on 24th February 2020, around 11:30 PM at the maujpur chowk of jafrabad between the opposers and supporters of CAA. The protesters involved themselves in shouting slogans which later lead to stone pelting and firing, causing injuries to several police officials and the public.  

An FIR no. 51/2020 was filed in in relation to this incident and shahrukh pathan was one of the accused. Charge sheet was filed against shahrukh for two incidents. One under sections 147, 148, 149, 186 & 216 of IPC for causing injury to public and section 25 & 27 of the arms act for possessing illegal weapon. Secondly he was charged under section 307 & 353 for shooting towards police head constable. 

Rohit shukla who was one among the public sustained a gunshot injury by the mob at maujpur chowk, shahrukh pathan was identified as the shooter and his bail application was rejected twice in this regard.

Court Analysis and Decision 

The court observed that Charges were framed against five accused persons- Salman, Shahrukh Pathan, Gulfam, AatirAtif and Osama from an order in 2021, while the accused Shahrukh Pathan was in judicial custody since 2020. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, was that there were riot committed by an armed unlawful assembly in which Rohit Shukla suffered gunshot injury while two police personnel namely Ct. Deepak Malik and Ct. Raman suffered injuries while they were performing their official duties near Maujpur Chowk. Rohit Shukla identified Sonu Chikna, Aatir and Osama as accused. Shahrukh Pathan was identified by SI Karan Singh, HC Vikash, HC Sonu and SI Jitender as part of said riotous mob/unlawful assembly and who tried to kill Rohit Shukla and caused injuries to police official Deepak Malik and Ct. Raman. After framing the charge, six witnesses were examined.  

Rohit Shukla in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, identified Sonu Chikna, Aatir and Osama as accused persons who were part of that mob, raising religious inflammatory slogans and shot at him. Thus, Rohit Shukla (PW-2) has not identified accused Shahrukh Pathan as an accused who shot him. Shahrukh Pathan, as per the charge-sheet, has been identified on the basis of statement of police witnesses as part of the riotous mob which shot at Rohit Shukla.  

Court decided that accused Shahrukh Pathan is not alleged to have shot Rohit Shukla but he is said to be part of the riotous mob, which shot at Rohit Shukla. Rest of co-accused persons- Sonu Chikna, Aatir, Osama and Salman being granted bail, the court is conscious of the fact that he has been in judicial custody since 03.04.2020. Finally accused Shahrukh Pathan has been granted regular Bail, on furnishing his personal bond for the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties. 

Regarding the fact that accused Shahrukh Pathan is involved in another riot, where he is stated to have made an attack on the police official on duty, court stated that the case will be dealt with on its own facts. Therefore, shahrukh pathan will still remain in custody for charges under sections 307 & 353. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Written by- K R Bhuvanashri 

click here to view judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *