No Bail Despite 6 Years Behind Bars: Delhi Court Sticks to High Court Line in Shahrukh Pathan Riots Case

In a setback for Shahrukh Pathan @ Khan, accused of pointing a gun at a police constable during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, a Delhi court has dismissed his latest regular bail application. Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai at Karkardooma Courts rejected the plea on March 12, 2026, emphasizing no material change in circumstances since the Delhi High Court's denial in October 2024. Pathan, in custody since March 3, 2020, argued he had served over half the maximum 10-year sentence under Section 307 IPC, but the court held him ineligible under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Image That Shook the Nation

The case stems from the February 2020 riots that ravaged North-East Delhi, leaving 53 dead and hundreds injured. FIR No. 51/2020 at Jafrabad Police Station accuses Pathan, along with others, of offenses including attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), obstructing public servants (Sections 186, 353), criminal intimidation, rioting (Sections 147-149), and Arms Act violations. A viral photograph captured Pathan allegedly aiming a pistol at Constable Deepak Dahiya amid the chaos, drawing nationwide outrage and swift arrest. Pathan also faces trial in a related FIR No. 49/2020 from the same riots.

Charges were framed in December 2021, and the trial remains at the prosecution evidence stage—15 of about 60 witnesses examined. This marks Pathan's 11th bail bid , with prior rejections by the trial court (including December 2023) and Delhi High Court (April 2021 and October 2024).

Defense Pushes for Liberty: Half Sentence, Good Conduct, Endless Wait

Pathan's counsel, including Advocates Abdul Gaffar and others, filed under Section 483 BNSS for regular bail, invoking the spirit of repealed Section 436A CrPC. Key arguments:

  • Over Half Sentence Served : In jail since March 2020—more than six years, exceeding half of Section 307's 10-year maximum (as no hurt caused).
  • Beneficial Provision Applies : Even post-BNSS, Section 436A CrPC's more favorable terms should govern retrospectively, citing precedents like Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (1994) on beneficial amendments and State of Punjab v. Bhajan Kaur (2008).
  • Trial Delay Justifies Release : Prosecution examined key eyewitnesses and complainant (15 total); 45 left, trial unlikely soon. Pre-trial detention oppressive, violating Article 21's speedy trial right ( Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , 2012).
  • No Flight or Tampering Risk : Prior interim bails honored without misuse; bail is rule, jail exception ( Dataram Singh v. State of UP , 2018).

Citing cases like Vaman Narayan Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan (2009), counsel urged release.

Prosecution Fires Back: Serial Applications, Serious Charges, No Shortcuts

Special Public Prosecutor Anuj Handa, with IO SI Arvind, opposed vehemently:

  • 11th Application, No New Facts : Dismissed by trial court and High Court multiple times; latest HC order (October 22, 2024) at similar trial stage—no changed circumstances.
  • BNSS Bars Relief : Section 479(2) BNSS (mirroring 436A CrPC) disqualifies if another case pending—Pathan's FIR 49/2020 applies. Saving clause (Section 531 BNSS) mandates BNSS post-repeal; no CrPC retrospectivity ( State through RPF v. Dharmendra , Delhi HC 2024).
  • Delay on Accused : Order sheets show adjournments due to defense unavailability, not prosecution.
  • Gravity Undiminished : Viral gun-pointing incident endangered lives; conduct noted adversely in prior orders.

Parsing the Law: BNSS Trumps CrPC, Multiple Cases Seal Fate

Judge Bajpai meticulously dissected the pleas. First, on half-sentence bail: Pathan qualifies duration-wise under Section 479 BNSS, but subsection (2) excludes those in multiple trials—FIR 49/2020 disqualifies. Defense's CrPC retrospectivity claim fails; post-BNSS applications fall under new code per Section 531. Precedents like Anil Kumar Yadav (J&K HC) inapplicable.

On merits, High Court rejections bind absent change: October 2024 order came post-five witness exams (including eyes); now 15 done, but still prosecution evidence—no shift. Delay? Largely accused-driven, per date-wise chart.

Bail is rule, but exceptions for serious offenses persist ( Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of UP , SC 2020). Pathan's good interim bail conduct noted, but insufficient.

Key Observations from the Bench

"Section 479 BNSS provides that an accused has to be released on bail if he has undergone one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment... but sub-section 2... if an accused is facing trial in more than one offences, he cannot be released on bail."

"The judgments as relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the applicant... will not be of any help... the saving clause of the BNSS i.e. Section 531 makes it amply clear that the present application can be treated only under the provisions of BNSS."

"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."

Locked In: Implications for Riots Undertrials

The application stands dismissed—no opinion on merits. Pathan remains in custody, underscoring BNSS's stricter guardrails for multi-case accused. For Delhi riots cases (hundreds pending), this reinforces trial court deference to higher courts and limits half-sentence bail. Future applicants must show stark changes or resolve parallel FIRs, balancing liberty with public safety amid protracted trials.