Northeast violence case: Delhi HC calls Shahrukh Pathan's bail plea 'highly derogatory'

Raising objection to the contents of the bail plea of Shahrukh Pathan, the man accused of allegedly open firing at police personnel in February 2020 during the violence in the national capital's northeast area, the Delhi High court on Thursday called it "highly derogatory" with "serious allegation" against Centre, ministers and judges.

The Delhi High Court said it took a serious view on the contents and "highly derogatory and serious allegations have been made against the Government of India, Ministers and Judge of this Court, which is deprecated and the Bar is suggested to not make such claims until and unless supported with factual and material evidence in a particular case."

"Before coming to the facts and rendering an opinion in the present case, this Court takes a serious view to the contents of paragraphs number 14 to 16 of this petition, which is not worth disclosing. Highly derogatory and serious allegations have been made against the Government of India, Ministers and Judge of this Court, which is deprecated and the Bar is suggested to not make such claims until and unless supported with factual and material evidence in a particular case, " the Court said.

The petitioner Shahrukh Pathan in his application raised serious allegations against the Central government and said the Home Ministry in connivance with the Delhi Police and through all the other agencies have "unleashed a mammoth attack on Muslims and Muslim empathizers and have been wantonly attacking and arresting innocent Muslims by invoking the draconian provisions of NSA or UAPA, etc and have successfully succeeded in creating an environment of hate on the line of religion."

The Court remark came while dismissing the bail plea of Shahrukh Pathan.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said that the video clipping and pictures played before this Court have 'shaken the conscience' of the Court about how petitioner could take law and order in his hands.

"Pertinently, the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the present case are that in the unfortunate incident of riots which occurred on February 24, 2020, at the road between Jaffrabad Metro Station and Maujpur Chowk amongst people of different communities, petitioner was a party to the huge crowd which had unauthorizedly gathered and pelted stones, petrol bombs and fired gun/pistol shots," the Court said.

"The role attributed to the petitioner is not confined to participation in the mob of rioters but of heading the large crowd, holding a pistol in hand and releasing open fire shots. The video clipping and pictures played before this Court have shaken the conscience of this Court how petitioner could take law and order in his hands. Whether or not the petitioner had the intention to kill the complainant or any person present in the public with his open-air pistol shots, but it is hard to believe that he had no knowledge that his act may harm anyone present at the spot, " it added.

The High Court further noted that it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not involved in the alleged incident, and opined that "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."

The Court added that keeping in mind the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner it was not inclined to grant bail to the Pathan.

According to police, after the incident in February, Pathan initially kept roaming around in the national capital before slipping away to Punjab and Uttar Pradesh's Shamli, from where he was arrested later.

He went to Shamli in Uttar Pradesh, from where he was arrested by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police. During the investigation, Pathan revealed that the car he used belonged to his uncle's son and that he had left the car in a garage in Haryana after it broke down.

In February, clashes broke out in the northeast area of Delhi between the groups supporting and opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act, which led to the deaths of at least 53 people.

( With inputs from ANI )