The Delhi High Court today wouldn't give bail to Shahrukh Pathan who was found in a viral video pointing a gun at an unarmed Delhi Police work force during the riots of February 2020. (Shahrukh Pathan versus State)
In case shahrukh pathan vs state, Advocates Khalid Akhtar, Mohammad Shadan, Bilal Khan, Maaz Akhtar, Sheikh Bakhtyar arisen for Pathan and State was represented by SPPs Amit Mahajan, Rajat Nair with Advocates Shantanu Sharma, Dhruv Pande.
Following the episode, a FIR was enlisted against him by the Delhi Police for the commission of offenses under Sections 147/148/149/186/216/307/353 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act.
Pathan, an resident of north-east Delhi, was captured on march 3 ,seen pointing his gun at the cop on the Jaffrabad-Maujpur street.Chargesheet in the matter has effectively been recorded under the watchful eye of the preliminary court.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait observed that "Remembering the gravity of offense submitted by the petitioneras additionally current realities of the current case, I am not slanted to allow bail to the solicitor."
High Court noticed that the role credited to Shahrukh Pathan was not kept to his cooperation in the mob of agitators however of "heading a huge group, holding a gun close by and delivering open shoot shots".
Court commented that" he video cutting and pictures played under the steady gaze of this Court have shaken the heart of this Court how petitioner (Pathan) could take peace and lawfulness in his hand. Regardless of whether petitioner had expectation to execute the complainant or any individual present in general society with his outside gun shots, yet it is difficult to accept that he had no information that his demonstration may hurt anybody present at the spot."
Further directed that the veracity of the complainant's variant will be tried at preliminary, the Court added that it was not Pathan's case that he was not engaged with the supposed episode.
Court in this way concurred with the dismissal of his bail by trial court as it stated, "The learned trial court has rightly held that the petitioner is alleged to have participated in riots and his picture speaks a volume about his involvement".