New Delhi: A Delhi court on Saturday maintained the bail granted to Mohd. Ubaidullah after Delhi High Court bench headed by Justice Prateek Jalan set aside the earlier bail order as “cryptic and unreasoned” and directed the trial court to “reassess” the plea strictly on the basis of material on record.Judicial magistrate Joginder Prakash Nahar reheard the bail application pursuant to the High Court’s order passed on Friday. The case relates to alleged violence during the intervening night of Jan 6 and 7, 2026, near Badi Masjid of Faiz-e-Ilahi in Chandni Mahal, where stone pelting reportedly injured several police personnel. Eighteen persons were arrested in the case, with Ubaidullah being the first to secure bail on Jan 20.Appearing for Delhi Police, additional public prosecutor Gyanesh Chandra Soni relied on the statement of constable Ghanshyam recorded on Jan 7, wherein he stated that a crowd was “raising slogans and pelting stones”, and that “he could identify” some persons present, including Md. Ubaidullah. The prosecution also showed a video clip recorded around 1:30 am, in which the accused was allegedly seen walking in a gali and speaking to a girl. The defence claimed he was searching for his minor sister.Opposing the bail prosecution contended that the accused’s “mere presence” at the site attracted collective liability under Section 144 of the IPC, given that prohibitory orders were in force and the gathering had turned violent following an anti-encroachment drive.Defence counsel M.K. Malik and A.F. Faizi countered that the accused’s presence was natural, as his residence is located in the same gali. They argued 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 joined the probe at the first call, handed over his mobile phone, and that neither recovery nor police custody had been sought.After perusing the video, 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 the accused was seen “being pulled away by the running mob,” the court held that the prosecution’s claim that the accused came with the mob did not hold ground, particularly as it failed to identify him in the returning crowd or point out any stone in his hands.
