The Delhi High Court has overturned a lower court's decision to grant bail to a 25-year-old man accused of being part of a mob that injured police officers during a demolition drive near the Faiz-e-Ilahi mosque near Turkman Gate. The High Court (HC)remanded the matter back to the sessions court for reconsideration.

Justice Prateek Jalan noted the sessions court's order was "cryptic and unreasoned," and that the lower court granted bail "without even a prima facie or brief analysis of the factors which govern adjudication of bail applications". Justice Jalan stated that the High Court is typically cautious in interfering with an individual's liberty but deemed this case an exception.

The case stems from violence that erupted during an anti-encroachment drive ordered by the High Court, during which a mob allegedly injured police personnel. The accused, Md Ubedullah, is alleged to have been involved in rioting, stone-pelting, and attempted murder.

Earlier in the week, on January 20, 2026, an Additional Sessions Judge of the Tis Hazari Courts granted bail to Md Ubedullah, who had been in judicial custody since January 8. The sessions court cited that police custody was not required and that the accused would cooperate with the investigation. The court released Ubedullah on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the same amount.

Prior to Ubedullah being granted bail, another Delhi court had dismissed the bail pleas of five other individuals accused of instigating violence during the same Turkman Gate demolition drive. The court, at that time, held that the incident was not a simple case of assault but an attack on the administration, considering the relentless stone-pelting, damage to government property, and injuries sustained by police officers. The Delhi Police had argued that the accused endangered the lives of police personnel by pelting stones at them, despite a prohibitory order against gatherings. The prosecution also presented videos and messages allegedly circulated by the accused, claiming demolition of the mosque.

The Supreme Court has previously sought to define the application of stricter bail provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, balancing national security concerns with the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court has observed that criminal liability under the UAPA is not confined to the final execution of a terrorist act but defines criminality as a "process-based" concept rather than an "event-based one". In cases involving UAPA, the Supreme Court has stated that a collective approach to bail is not permitted and that it is necessary to distinguish between the existence of a conspiracy and the position occupied by an accused.