A Delhi court has denied bail to Shahrukh Pathan, the man whose image pointing a gun at a police officer during the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots went viral on social media. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts dismissed the bail plea, noting that the Delhi High Court had already denied him bail in October last year and that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred since then.
“When the Hon’ble High Court has declined bail to the applicant/accused vide order dated 22.10.2024 and the circumstances have not changed, except the fact that almost one and a half years have passed, this Court should not grant bail to him even now,” the judge said.
What the Case Is About
The bail plea was filed in FIR 51 of 2020 registered at Jafrabad Police Station, which relates to the incident in which Pathan was photographed pointing a firearm at a policeman during the riots. The photograph spread rapidly across social media and became one of the most recognised images from the violence that left 53 people dead and hundreds injured in northeast Delhi in February 2020. Pathan has been in judicial custody since March 2020.
Why Bail Was Sought and Why It Was Rejected
This was Pathan’s eleventh bail application, with all previous pleas having been dismissed by both the trial court and the Delhi High Court. In this latest attempt, his lawyers argued that he had already spent more than half of the maximum ten-year sentence prescribed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with attempt to murder, and sought bail under the principle contained in Section 436A of the now-repealed Code of Criminal Procedure.
The prosecution strongly opposed the plea, pointing out that it was the eleventh such application and that Pathan is also an accused in a separate riots-related FIR. Under Section 479(2) of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the benefit of release after undergoing half the maximum sentence cannot be granted if the accused is simultaneously facing trial in another case.
The court agreed with the prosecution’s position. It held that after the BNSS came into force, the bail request had to be examined under Section 479 of the new law and that the benefit of the repealed provision under the old CrPC could not be claimed retrospectively. Since Pathan is facing trial in another riots case, the court held he was not eligible for the half-sentence bail relief.
The judge also noted that delay in the trial could not be attributed solely to the prosecution, observing that proceedings had on several occasions been delayed due to the conduct of Pathan himself.
