Delhi Court Reserves Decision on Bail Pleas in Turkman Gate Incident

Yugcharan / 09/02/2026

A Delhi court on Monday reserved its order on the bail applications of eight individuals accused in connection with the disturbance that occurred during an anti-encroachment exercise near Turkman Gate last month. The court is scheduled to pronounce its decision on February 12, while arguments relating to four other accused persons in the same case are also expected to be heard on that day.

The matter is being heard by Additional Sessions Judge Bhupinder Singh, who considered submissions from both the defence and the prosecution during the latest round of proceedings. The case arises from an incident that took place on the intervening night of January 6 and 7, when a demolition drive was carried out in the Ramlila Maidan area, close to the Faiz-e-Elahi mosque. Authorities have stated that tensions escalated after information circulated on social media platforms, leading to a large gathering at the site.

Background of the Case

According to the police, the situation deteriorated when a crowd assembled following rumours that the mosque near Turkman Gate was being targeted as part of the demolition activity. Officials have alleged that members of the gathering engaged in disruptive actions, during which objects such as stones and bottles were thrown, resulting in injuries to several personnel deployed at the site. Six police officers, including the local station house officer, reportedly sustained injuries.

Following the incident, multiple individuals were taken into custody, and cases were registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Over the weeks that followed, several accused persons approached the courts seeking bail, citing different grounds including lack of direct evidence, procedural lapses, and parity with co-accused who have already been granted relief.

Bail Pleas Under Consideration

The eight accused whose bail pleas are currently under consideration include Mohammad Adnan, Mohammad Kaif, Mohammad Kashif, Sameer Hussain, Mohammad Ubaidullah, Mohammad Areeb, Mohammad Naved, and Mohammad Athar. In addition, four other individuals — Adnan, Mohammad Imran, Amir Hamza, and Mohammad Aadil — are also facing proceedings related to the same incident, with arguments in their matters to be heard subsequently.

On Monday, the court primarily heard arguments relating to the bail application of Mohammad Adnan. His counsel raised questions about the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the nature of the charges invoked against him. It was argued that the initial first information report (FIR) did not include Section 109 of the BNS, and that the offences initially cited were bailable in nature, carrying sentences of less than seven years.

Defence Arguments

The defence submitted that established legal principles governing arrests, particularly those laid down by the Supreme Court in the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, ought to be applied in the present case. These guidelines emphasize restraint in arrests for offences punishable with shorter terms of imprisonment and stress the importance of ensuring that arrests are made only when necessary.

Counsel for the accused contended that there was no clear or convincing material on record to show that Mohammad Adnan was directly involved in the alleged acts at the site. The defence further alleged irregularities during the arrest process, claiming that family members were not properly informed and that procedural safeguards were not adequately followed.

It was also submitted that there were concerns regarding the manner in which the accused was taken into custody, including the absence of a woman police officer during the operation and questions surrounding the signing of arrest-related documents. The defence maintained that such issues raised serious doubts about the legality of the arrest.

Allegations of Custodial Ill-Treatment

During the hearing, the court was also apprised of allegations relating to custodial ill-treatment. Reference was made to a previous judicial order in January, wherein a magistrate had directed a fresh medical examination of a co-accused after noting injuries that were not reflected in the initial medical report. While no visible external injuries were recorded in Mohammad Adnan’s medical examination, the defence stated that he had complained of physical discomfort.

The defence further argued that the absence of closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage from the police facility where the accused were held made it difficult to independently verify events that allegedly occurred during custody. According to submissions made in court, the cameras were reportedly not operational at the relevant time due to maintenance issues.

Prosecution’s Stand

Responding to the defence arguments, the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused and their legal representatives were duly informed about the inclusion of additional charges through official documentation, including the arrest memo. The prosecution maintained that the investigation had followed due process and that the seriousness of the allegations warranted careful judicial scrutiny before granting bail.

The prosecution also emphasized the broader context of the incident, noting that the situation had the potential to disrupt public order and endanger the safety of both law enforcement personnel and civilians. It was argued that the court must consider the collective impact of the alleged actions while deciding on bail applications.

Parity with Co-Accused

One of the key points raised by the defence was the principle of parity. It was pointed out that a co-accused, Mohammad Ubaidullah, had been granted bail by a sessions court earlier. Although that order was initially set aside and remanded by the Delhi High Court, bail was subsequently granted after reconsideration. The defence argued that similar relief should be extended to other accused persons whose roles, according to them, were comparable.

What Lies Ahead

With arguments concluded for the eight bail applications, the court has reserved its order, which is expected to be delivered on February 12. On the same day, further submissions are likely to be heard in relation to the remaining accused persons involved in the case.

The Turkman Gate incident continues to draw attention as it moves through the judicial process, highlighting issues related to crowd management during civic enforcement drives, the role of information circulating on digital platforms, and the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding individual rights.

For now, all eyes remain on the sessions court’s forthcoming decision, which will determine whether the accused are granted temporary relief while the investigation and trial proceedings continue.