Delhi High Court : has set aside a bail order granted to an accused in the Turkman Gate stone pelting case, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings related to the incident. The court has remanded the matter back to the trial court, directing it to reconsider the bail plea in accordance with law and established judicial principles.
The decision was delivered by Justice Prateek Jalan, who observed that the earlier bail order suffered from serious deficiencies. According to the High Court, the order granting bail was cryptic in nature and lacked proper reasoning. The court noted that such an approach does not meet the standards required for judicial scrutiny, especially in cases involving serious allegations. As a result, the High Court concluded that the order required reconstruction through a fresh and reasoned consideration.
On January 20, the Tis Hazari Court had granted regular bail to the accused, Md. Ubedullah. The trial court had taken note of the submission that the prosecution no longer required the custody of the accused. Md. Ubedullah had earlier been sent to judicial custody on January 8 in connection with the case.
Additional Sessions Judge Joginder Prakash Nahar allowed the bail application subject to specific conditions. The court stated that, considering the facts and circumstances, the accused was entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the accused was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 25,000 along with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate.
As part of the bail conditions, the trial court had directed that the accused must not enter within a 50-metre radius of the victim or complainant’s residence. Several other conditions were also imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation and to prevent any potential interference with the case.
Counsel for the accused argued that the residence of Md. Ubedullah is located barely 50 metres away from the alleged place of incident. It was contended that the accused had not committed any offence and that his presence near the spot was natural, as he was seen close to his own house.
The defence further submitted that the prosecution relied on a photograph claiming that the person visible was the accused. According to the accused, the image merely showed him standing near his residence and did not establish any involvement in stone pelting or violence. It was also pointed out that no video footage or call detail records had been produced to demonstrate his participation in the alleged offence.
The bail plea was strongly opposed by the prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutors. It was argued that since the case involved an offence relating to attempt to murder under the relevant provisions of criminal law, the bail application ought to have been considered by a magistrate in accordance with procedure.
This submission was countered by the defence, which maintained that the offence of attempt to murder is exclusively triable by a court of sessions. The court had earlier acknowledged that the relevant statutory provisions clearly place such offences within the jurisdiction of the sessions court.
The accused also highlighted his personal and family circumstances before the trial court. It was submitted that he is the sole earning member of his family and the only son responsible for taking care of his paralysed father. Medical documents related to his father’s condition were placed on record to support this claim.
The Delhi Police has registered the case under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The First Information Report has been lodged at the Chandani Mahal Police Station. With the High Court’s intervention, the trial court is now expected to reassess the bail application through a detailed and reasoned order.
