Delhi court upholds bail for Turkman Gate stone-pelting accused

Delhi's Tis Hazari Court upheld its bail order for Md. Ubedullah in the Turkman Gate stone-pelting case. The court reconsidered the matter as directed by the Delhi High Court, which had earlier set aside the bail calling it 'unreasonable'.

Court Upholds Bail After Reconsideration

Delhi's Tis Hazari Court on Saturday maintained the order of bail granted to the accused in the Turkman Gate stone pelting case after reconsideration as per the direction of the Delhi High Court. Earlier, the Delhi High Court on Friday set aside the earlier bail order and directed the reconsideration. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Joginder Prakash Nahar maintained the earlier bail order after hearing the submissions and discussing the arguements of the Delhi police.

"In view of the above discussion, it is held that in the light of the earlier bail order passed and the discussion made above, the bail order in respect of the applicant/accused, Md. Ubedullah is maintained as passed vide order dated 20.01.2026. With these directions, this bail application stands disposed," ASJ Nahar ordered on Saturday.

While passing the order, the court observed, "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prima facie connection of this accused with the stone pelting crowd or slogan shouting crowd is not seen, which is further subject to investigation." The court said that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this accused further in custody, who is submitted to be 25 years of age and has to keep a minor sister at home and his sick father.

High Court's Intervention

The Delhi High Court on Friday set aside an order of bail granted to Md. Ubedullah. The High Court remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration. Justice Prateek Jalan had set aside the order and remanded it for consideration. The bail order was challenged by the Delhi Police.

The bench had said that it was a case where bail was granted through a cryptic and unreasonable order. It requires reconstruction.

Details of the Original Bail Order

On January 20, the Tis Hazari court granted regular bail to the accused, Md. Ubedullah, after noting that Prosecution does not require the Custody of Accused. He was sent in judicial custody on January 8. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Joginder Prakash Nahar had granted bail to Md. Ubedullah is subject to certain conditions.

The court had said that Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is entitled to bail in this matter. "Accordingly, the applicant/accused Md. Ubedullah is granted bail on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Ld. JMFC/Link JMFC/Duty JMFC subject to the following conditions...." ASJ Nahar ordered on January 20.

The court directed that the accused shall not enter a 50-meter radius around the house of the victim/complainant. Other conditions have also been imposed.

Arguments Presented in Court

Advocate A F Faizi, counsel for the accused, submitted that the accused's residence is hardly 50 metres away from the place of the incident, and that he has not committed any offence in the present case. It was also submitted that the prosecution has filed the photo in which it is claimed that the person who is seen in the photo is the accused. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that the accused is shown just near and outside his house. Hence, it is natural for the accused to be near his house.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastava alongwith APP Gyan Chandra Soni, had opposed the bail application on the ground that it is required to be filed before the magistrate even when the attempt to murder (Section 109 BNS) is involved. This submission was opposed by the counsel for accsued and submitted that the offence of attempt to murder is exclusively triable by a court of sessions.

The court had noted, " It is not in dispute that Section 307 IPC/Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023 contains the offence which are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions."

It was submitted on behalf of the accused that no video of this accused at any place other than the area near the house, nor any CDR, has come on record showing that this accused was in any manner involved in the offence. It was also submitted that he is the only bread earner of his family. He is the only son to look after his paralysed father, and medical prescription slips of his father are filed on record.

The court had noted the submissions by APP for the state that this accused was involved under Section 149 IPC/190 of BNS. "It is noted that police custody of this accused is not required. It is submitted for the accused that the accused will cooperate during the investigation and will observe the conditions granted for him," the court said in the order.

Charges Filed

Delhi Police has lodged a case under sections 221, 132, 121, 191(2(3), 223(4), 109(1), 49, 3(5) BNS and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. An FIR is lodged at Police Station Chandani Mahal. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)