Delhi’s legal landscape saw a pivotal moment as the High Court quashed the bail granted to Mohammad Ubaidullah in the high-profile Turkman Gate stone-throwing case. The ruling came on a police petition challenging the trial court’s ‘perfunctory’ decision, highlighting lapses in judicial review.
Back on the night of the operation, tension boiled over at Faiz-e-Ilahi Masjid when anti-encroachment teams faced fierce opposition. Around 12:40 AM, a crowd assembled, chanting inflammatory slogans and pelting stones, injuring multiple officers and damaging vehicles. The FIR paints a picture of premeditated unrest, with WhatsApp messages from local powerbrokers rallying supporters to derail the clearance.
Arrested alongside Ubaidullah were Mohammad Naved and Mohammad Faiz, all charged with assaulting police and rioting. While the duo remained in custody, Ubaidullah secured bail from the sessions court, prompting police to escalate the matter to the High Court.
The appellate bench lambasted the lower court’s order, pointing out it skimmed over critical police arguments without substantive analysis. ‘Merely recording submissions does not constitute reasoned judgment,’ the court remarked, ordering bail cancellation and custody forthwith.
This case spotlights the challenges of enforcing land laws in heritage zones like Turkman Gate, home to historic monuments and teeming slums. Residents often resist demolitions, citing livelihood threats, but officials argue unchecked encroachments exacerbate sanitation and fire hazards.
As Ubaidullah’s legal team mulls further options, the verdict reinforces police resolve in anti-encroachment campaigns. It also prompts introspection on coordination between local influencers and agitators, with authorities probing deeper into digital mobilization tactics.