Delhi Court Reaffirms Bail for Ubaidullah After High Court's 'Cryptic Order' Rebuke
A Delhi court on Saturday maintained the bail granted to Mohd. Ubaidullah in a case related to alleged violence in Chandni Mahal, following a directive from the Delhi High Court to reassess the plea. The High Court bench, headed by Justice Prateek Jalan, had set aside the earlier bail order as "cryptic and unreasoned" and instructed the trial court to strictly base its reassessment on the material on record.
Rehearing Ordered by High Court
Judicial magistrate Joginder Prakash Nahar reheard the bail application on Saturday, pursuant to the High Court's order passed on Friday. This case stems from incidents during the intervening night of January 6 and 7, 2026, near Badi Masjid of Faiz-e-Ilahi in Chandni Mahal, where stone pelting reportedly injured several police personnel. Eighteen individuals were arrested in connection with the violence, with Ubaidullah being the first to secure bail on January 20.
Prosecution's Arguments
Appearing for Delhi Police, additional public prosecutor Gyanesh Chandra Soni relied on the statement of constable Ghanshyam recorded on January 7. In his statement, Ghanshyam stated that a crowd was "raising slogans and pelting stones" and that "he could identify" some persons present, including Md. Ubaidullah. The prosecution also presented a video clip recorded around 1:30 am, which allegedly showed the accused walking in a gali and speaking to a girl. The defence countered this by claiming he was searching for his minor sister.
Opposing the bail, the prosecution contended that the accused's "mere presence" at the site attracted collective liability under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code. They argued that prohibitory orders were in force and the gathering had turned violent following an anti-encroachment drive, making his presence sufficient grounds for denial of bail.
Defence's Counterarguments
Defence counsel M.K. Malik and A.F. Faizi argued that Ubaidullah's presence was natural, as his residence is located in the same gali. They maintained that he was not part of the mob but was outside "looking for his minor sister" and was pushed by the oncoming crowd. The defence also rejected the prosecution's apprehension that the accused might "influence the investigation", pointing out that he had cooperated fully by joining the probe at the first call, handing over his mobile phone, and that neither recovery nor police custody had been sought by the authorities.
Court's Observations and Decision
After perusing the video evidence, the court observed that the accused was seen "arriving alone, after which a strong mob ran into the gali and later ran back, allegedly due to tear gas shelling". Noting that Ubaidullah was seen "being pulled away by the running mob", the court held that the prosecution's claim that he came with the mob did not hold ground. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to identify him in the returning crowd or point out any stone in his hands, undermining their case for collective liability.
Based on these findings, the court reaffirmed the bail for Mohd. Ubaidullah, concluding that the evidence did not sufficiently support the prosecution's arguments to warrant his detention. This decision highlights the judiciary's emphasis on reasoned orders and strict adherence to factual records in bail matters.
