The High Court of Delhi on Thursday directed Shahrukh Pathan, one of the accused in the Northeast riots of 2020, to approach the trial court for advance hearing of his petition, after the latter alleged that he was attacked and assaulted by jail officials.
The order was passed by the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Sharma, which observed that since a petition has already been moved before the trial court, it would be appropriate if the application seeking early hearing was filed in the concerned court only.
Representing Pathan, Advocate Khalid Akhtar submitted that the trial court had listed the matter for hearing on February 28, but it did not pass any order or direction for either preservation or production of CCTV footage.
Besides, the trial court did not pass any order regarding adequate safety measures for the petitioner, pointed out the Counsel.
The High Court suggested the petitioner orally to approach the trial court for early hearing, saying that if nothing happened at that front, then the High Court would look into the matter.
The Single-Judge Bench granted him liberty to file an application before the trial court in the matter. Pathan then withdrew his plea.
Though the accused was booked in various cases related to the riots, the petition in question was moved in FIR 51/2020, which was related to an incident wherein Patahn had pointed a gun towards a policeman during the riots. His pictures regarding the incident had gone viral on social media.
The FIR was registered at Jafrabad police station under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion etc), 186 (Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 188 (Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant) 307 (Attempt to murder), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief), 120B (Criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) of IPC along with Section 27 (Punishment for using arms, etc) of Arms Act.
In December last year, the trial court had framed charges against Pathan and other accused in the FIR. It had also convicted a man for harbouring Pathan under Section 216 of IPC after he had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him.
(Case title: Shahrukh Pathan vs State)