Shahrukh Pathan, who pointed a gun at a policeman during the anti-Hindu riots in North-East Delhi in 2020, was refused regular bail by a Delhi court on 14th December. The court stated it observed no need to grant him bail and Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court noted, “Considering the conduct of the accused Shahrukh Pathan in jail during his judicial custody, his conduct prior to his being arrested, conduct during court proceedings and most importantly, the allegations against the accused which are being supported by the eyewitnesses and also the video footage, on any of the counts on which bail can be considered, the court sees nothing to set him enlarged on bail.”

The bail order made several revelations about Shahrukh Patha,n the case and the remorseless conduct of Pathan after he was arrested, based on the evidence provided by the prosecution which was accepted by the court.

The case pertains to the infamous picture where Shahrukh Pathan was seen holding a gun to a police officer’s head during the Delhi anti-hindu riots. During the riot, on the 24th of February 2020, a confrontation broke out between Jaffrabad Metro Station and Maujpur Bridge. There were more than 5,000 people who came face to face in that area. The anti-CAA protestors (Islamist mob) were pelting stones and brandishing guns. When the investigation was carried out, 3 cartridges were found at the spot where Shahrukh Pathan brandished a gun, aimed at the head of a police officer in uniform.

The order details how Shahrukh Pathan first fired a few rounds at the crowd and refused to pay heed to the warnings issued by the police officer. When he advanced, for the safety of the crowd, the police officer stood in his path and did not move. When Pathan was at a distance of 9-10 feet from the police officer, he fired his weapon aimed at the police officer’s head to kill him. The police officer dodged the bullet but continued to stand there in his path so he couldn’t advance further and kill the Hindus. As the police officer refused to move, Pathan pushed the officer and then aimed the gun at his head again. When the police officer issued another warning after being pushed, Shahrukh Pathan fired at the crowd and started retreating.

It was only after sustained interrogation that Shahrukh Pathan revealed his full identity and confessed to his involvement in the crime. The prosecution has also argued that Shahrukh Pathan was not only attempting to kill the police officer but was also leading the mob.

Interestingly, the order reveals how Shahrukh Pathan was not cooperative during the investigation and refused to reveal the identity of other rioters who were involved. During the investigation, it is detailed, that Pathan also tried his best to mislead the police. He has also displayed aggressive and remorseless conduct in jail.

The prosecution argued that if let out on bail, he could potentially influence witnesses and tamper with evidence. Also, given the fear of the 10-year jail term that could be handed to him, he could abscond. Taking into account his conduct inside the jail and during the investigation, the court agreed with the prosecution and refused to grant him bail.

In the order document detailing the arguments of the prosecution, there was one specific argument that deserved further investigation.

The prosecution had argued that Shahrukh Pathan’s father, Sabir Ali (alias Baldev Singh) was convicted for 10 years with a fine of Rs 1 lac under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and sections of the NDPS Act.

OpIndia pulled up the court judgement in the case where Shahrukh Pathan’s father was convicted by a Delhi court. The judgement convicting him was pronounced on 11th August 2016. The facts of the case, detailed in the court order, almost read like a movie.

In January 2010, Meghalaya Police filed a complaint in Delhi that three Pakistani nationals Abdul Razzaq, Mohd. Saddique and Rafakat Ali who had been brought from Lampur Seva Sadan (FRRO detention centre) on 1st January 2010 to Guru Nanak Eye Hospital for their medical examination had escaped while they were being taken back.

During the investigation to track down the missing Pakistanis, the visitor’s register which was maintained by Meghalaya Police was also checked. The entries in the register made from 28/9/2009 to 02/01/2010 revealed that two people – Anees Khan and Arbaz Khan – had met Abdul Razzaq and Saleem on 29/12/2009 and 30/12/2009. During interrogation, it was revealed that before absconding on 1/1/2010, the three Pakistanis had after going to Gurunanak Eye Hospital were first taken to Jama Masjid and then one of them (Abdul Razzak) was taken by him to Seelampur near Jaffarbad to collect money from someone. Anees and Arbaz were nephews of Sabir Ali.

It is pertinent to understand here that the three Pakistanis were in India illegally and therefore, were being held at a detention centre. From the story so far, it is also clear that they were given harbour at Jama Masjid from where one of them was taken to Seelampur (near Jaffrabad) to collect money – the very area where the Delhi anti-Hindu riots had broken out in February 2020 – in which Shahrukh Pathan was also leading a mob.

Based on this investigation, Sabir Ali (Baldev Singh), Anees Khan and Arbaz were called to the Special Cell office and inquiries were made from them. During interrogation, it was revealed that it was Sabir Ali (Baldev Singh) who had given money to Abdul Razzaq at Seelampur before he had absconded.

Essentially, from the records so far, it is clear that it was Shahrukh Pathan’s father who had give money to a Pakistani before they had absconded. This money was give to the illegal in Seelampur.

The numbers that were taken from the accused during interrogation were then thoroughly investigated after those detained and questioned – including the father of Shahrukh Pathan – were set free. During the surveillance of the numbers, it was revealed that the accused – including Pathan’s father – were involved in the business of fake currency and drugs. There was also an intercepted call where Sabir Ali had spoken about the international smuggling of drugs.

After this surveillance, when a notice was served to Sabir Ali, Arbaz and Anees, they refused to answer the notice served by the special cell. The Special Cell then received information about a Charas and Smack delivery that Sabir Ali and his co-accused Sannaullah Mir were about to make. When the raiding party intercepted Ali and Mir, they discovered drugs in their possession. Substantial amounts of drugs were also found on the scooter of Sabir Ali – the substance in the scooter was heroin.

After the subsequent arrest, Mir and Ali were interrogated separately. During interrogation, the father of Shahrukh Pathan, Sabir Ali, confessed that he was in the business of drugs and fake currency notes along with his associates Anees, Arbaz, Jarnail and Mir. He also disclosed how the police could arrest Jarnail Singh and revealed that on an earlier occasion, Singh had given him 2 lacs and drugs, parts of which were then distributed to the others. He also agreed to lead the police to another accused – Javed. Several of the co-accused were then arrested post-interrogation of Ali.

In 2011, all the accused persons were charged for the offences u/s 29 r.w.s. 21, 20 and 23 of the NDPS Act and accused Sabir Ali was separately charged for the offence u/s 21(c), 25A of the NDPS Act and accused Sanaullah Mir was separately charged for the offence of u/s 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. All the accused persons were also charged for the offences u/s 489 C r.w.s. 120B IPC.

In court, the prosecution examined 39 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. All the accused, including the father of Shahrukh Pathan, took the defence that they had been falsely implicated by the police and that no contraband/counterfeit currency notes had been recovered from their possession or at their instance at any point in time.

Among all the accused, the court ‘particularly’ was intrigued by the defence of Sabir Ali alias Baldev Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that Shahrukh Pathan’s father was previously a Sikh named Baldev Singh and had converted to Islam before marrying.

When Sabir Ali started explaining why he was supposedly implicated by the police, he ended up revealing his long illustrious career as a criminal. Here is what the court document said:

“In particular accused Baldev Singh has stated that he originally belongs to Punjab and shifted to Delhi in 1984 due to political turmoil and terrorist activities in Punjab. In Delhi he started selling garments from a patri in Chandni Chowk but in the year 1984 the police officials of Maurice Nagar falsely arrested him on a mere suspicion that he was a terrorist. When their enquiry into his antecedents did not reveal anything incriminating against him, they planted contraband on him and falsely implicated him in a case under the Excise Act. After spending three years in the jail in the said case, he came out and started working as a driver for a transport company. During the said services a vehicle which he was driving was intercepted by DRI and contraband was recovered from the same. Though he had no knowledge and had nothing to do with the contraband concealed in the said vehicle, he was arrested by DRI and also subsequently convicted in the said case and again spent more than 10 years in judicial custody. After coming out from the jail after undergoing the sentence in the said case he again started his life afresh and started doing the business of pannis/plastics and started living with his children, his wife, his brother in law, Anees and Arbaz, the son of his second brother in law Babu Khan, in his house H.No. U­108, Gali no. 5, Arvind Nagar, Gautam Vihar, Gonda. He suspects that somebody in his locality informed the local police officials about his previous records and that is why the officials of Special Cell came to his residence in the first week of January, 2010 and forcibly picked him, his son and Anees and Arbaz and took them to PS and started inquiring about same Pakistani nationals who had absconded. Though they were released from the PS after the police officials found nothing incriminating against them, on 3/9/2010 again he, Anees and Arbaz were forcibly picked up from their residence at 1:30 a.m. in the night and brought to the office of Special cell, Rohini and falsely implicated in this case”.

Essentially, Shahrukh Pathan’s father at the time had asserted that he was being falsely implicated by the police in this case of collusion with Pakistanis and being involved in an international drug peddling and fake currency racket because he had done exactly that in the past, been convicted for it, and therefore, the police thought of him as a convenient target. Further, he also dared to claim that all the previous times he was caught with contrabands and convicted, even then, he was falsely implicated.

The shoddy defence that was put up by Sabir Ali was backed only by one witness – the witness’ only testimony was that he had never seen a Pakistani enter the home of Ali. This statement was made without any evidence.

The court said, “The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and believable and nothing has emerged in their cross­examination which cast doubt on the veracity of their statement or to impeach their creditworthiness”. The court also said that all the seizure of drugs and fake currency was done per the law. While the defence tried to puncture technical holes in the process, the court threw out all of their arguments and convicted the accused – including Sabir Ali. To that effect, the court said, “as far as recovery of contraband from accused Baldev Singh and Sanaullah is concerned, in my view, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt”.

While the court rejected the argument that the accused were colluding with each other, it convicted all accused for the possession of contraband substances, however, there was amply evidence of collusion as well based on the statements of Ali. Based on this evidence, Sabir Ali, the father of Shahrukh Pathan, was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1 lac fine in 2016. According to reports, Shahrukh’s mother also is said to be a notorious drug peddler.

How Ravish Kumar had spread misinformation, calling Shahrukh Pathan a Hindu and how Quint had humanised him

In his show ‘Prime Time’ on 26th February 2020, Ravish Kumar resorted to spreading half-truths and full lies about the horrifying spate of violence that had engulfed the national capital. In pursuance of what appeared as his agenda to tarnish Hindus and portray them as the aggressors of the riots, Kumar identified Mohammad Shahrukh alias Shahrukh Pathan, who fired at Delhi Police personnel on February 24, as one ‘Anurag Mishra’.

For the 26th February show, Ravish claimed that police had not yet arrested him while he was arrested on 25th February itself, good 24 hours before his show premiered. “Police ki haalat yeh hai ki abhi tak giraftar nahin hua hai. Police saaf kehti hai ki Shahrukh hai magar aap social media mein dekhiye Anurag Mishra bataya jaa raha hai. (Situation of the Police is such that they have not yet arrested him. Police says his name is Shahrukh but if you see on social media, he is called Anurag Mishra),” he spoke in his characteristic drawl during the show. Naturally, it was quite a revelation since no one had yet referred to the shooter as “Anurag Mishra” till then.

He then asked Delhi Police to speak out on his identity again. He then played an undated speech of his reporter who appeared to be asking Delhi Police personnel about Shahrukh’s arrest. Slyly, Ravish Kumar then played the videos of BJP leaders Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra and Pravesh Verma addressing rallies ahead of Delhi elections to cast aspersions that their speeches were responsible for stoking riots a month later.

Further, in August 2021, 18 months after the 25-year-old Delhi anti-Hindu riots accused Shahrukh Pathan was arrested for brandishing a gun at the police and threatening them, The Quint published a white paper on him watering down his crime and making him appear like a cherubic saint. The Quint started by describing his menacing march as ‘brazen confidence in his gait’. Then the writer of the ‘Shahrukh Pathan fan page’ romanticised his criminal act. “Unfazed by the policemen in riot gear, he shot bullets in the air while media persons captured his acts in astonishment.

The fact that the gym enthusiast, who was also a local, did not wear a mask to hide his identity, made his ‘bravado’ seem peculiar and odd,” the author wrote. The Quint then went on to explain how his friends described Shahrukh as someone who was into grooming and was interested in his appearance. He was characterised as someone who was a biryani-lover, liked to put gel in his hair, blow dry it, wear crisp, ironed shirts, good shoes and well, make TikTok videos. The author interviewed Pathan’s mother, who had glowing views about her son. She said her son was innocent and ‘simple-minded’.

Shahrukh’s mother also highlighted counterfactual scenarios to water down her son’s criminality. She told his fans at The Quint that she often wonders, “What if she had given him food when he asked? What if the timing was a few minutes before or after namaz?”