Mohd. Tasleem vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3755 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mohd. Tasleem vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 August, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

                          Judgment reserved on:-22.08.2025
                          Judgment delivered on:-28.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2025

Mohd. Tasleem                                    ...........Appellant

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand                            .........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. C.K. Sharma and Mr. Nitin Tewari, Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, D.A.G. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) As per Office report, there is a delay of 59 days in filing the present criminal appeal against the judgment and order impugned.

2. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.

3. The reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the delay condonation application, are sufficient enough to condone the delay of 59 days in filing the present criminal appeal.

4. Accordingly Delay Condonation Application (IA No.2 of 2025) is allowed.

5. Delay of 59 days in filing the criminal appeal stands condoned.

6. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgments and orders dated 08.07.2024 and 09.09.2024, passed by learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital, in FIR No.22 of 2024, under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, 120-B of IPC, Section 3/4 of the Uttarakhand Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 & under Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, registered at Police Station Banbhulpura, Haldwani, District Nainital, whereby the learned Judge rejected the bail application of the appellant.

7. Brief facts of the case involved in the present criminal appeal are that FIR No.22 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, 120-B of IPC, Section 3/4 of the Uttarakhand Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 & under Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, registered at Police Station Banbhulpura, Haldwani, District Nainital on 08.02.2024. In the FIR, it has been alleged by the informant that while the team of administration and police went to demolish and remove the illegal construction at Malik-ka-Bagicha in Haldwani on 08.02.2024, several persons assembled there and committed violence, arson and rioting with the team of administration and police; hurled petrol bombs, fired from illegal weapons and snatched weapons of the Police. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that the rioters even attacked the then police SHO of Police Station Mukhani, their vehicle and snatched the service revolver of the SHO which were not recovered till date. The appellant/applicant has been arrested on 11.02.2024 on the charge of the aforesaid offences.

8. It is admitted that the provisions of Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were invoked subsequently during investigation against the appellant/applicant and other persons who have been arrested during investigation. The name of the appellant/applicant was not mentioned in the FIR. He was arrested on the asking of Haneef Ahmed, who during search of his home told Police party that the appellant/applicant also pelted stones on police party and committed arsoning.

9. The first bail application of the appellant/applicant was rejected by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital vide order dated 08.07.2024 on which he moved his second bail application before learned Judge, which too was dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2025. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and orders, the appellant/applicant is before this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application by stating that the appellant/applicant was involved in serious offence of rioting, arson and violence that too with the officers of the administration and Police. It has also been stated that in the statement of Mukesh Saxena-reporter (independent witness) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the involvement of appellant/applicant is proved; the illegal arms and petrol bombs were stored under a well planned conspiracy and public officers were attacked with the intention to kill by using petrol bombs etc. by demonstrating criminal force. The State further stated that the criminal activities done by the appellant/applicant falls within the definition of terroristic attack with the purpose of creating terror

among the people and the attack caused by the crowd of which the appellant/applicant was part of, caused irreparable damaged to the property of nation and it created fear in the mind of general public, therefore, offence is made out against the appellant/applicant.

11. It is further submitted by the State that after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet against the appellant/applicant before the court concerned.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that appellant/applicant was not named in the FIR; he has falsely been implicated with the incident; he has no concern with the alleged violence rioting and arson. He further submitted that there is no concrete evidence with the prosecution to connect the appellant/applicant with the incident happened on 08.02.2024 at Malik-Ka-Bagicha in Haldwani. He further submitted that the appellant/applicant is under incarceration since 11.02.2024. His name was taken by Haneef Ahmed during search of the house of Haneef Ahmed; therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail by this Court after setting aside the judgment and order impugned. He further submitted that merely on the basis of his name being told by Haneef Ahmed by indicating that he too was involved in stone pelting and arsoning, he cannot be nailed.

14. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State strongly opposed the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant/applicant. He also relied

upon the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to nail the appellant/applicant with the alleged crime and offences. He further submitted that though the appellant/applicant has not been named in the FIR because the FIR was against unknown persons, but his name was figured during investigation and he was identified by Haneef Ahmed when his house was searched as a person who too participated in stone pelting and arsoning.

15. We have perused the record of the case and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Pramod Pathak informant. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is no mention of the name of appellant/applicant. As stated above, he was indicated with the crime by Haneef Ahmed whose house was being searched.

16. Having considered the submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no direct evidence against the appellant/applicant. The prosecution could not tell us as to what active role would be attributed to the appellant/applicant. So far no direct evidence is there against him. Moreover, he is a local person. It is also in the mind of this Court since the appellant/applicant has already spent more than one year six months in custody in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIR, he is entitled to be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. The judgments and orders dated 08.07.2024 and 09.09.2024 impugned in the instant appeal are hereby set-aside. The appellant/applicant-Mohd. Tasleem is directed to be released immediately on bail on his

executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in FIR No.22 of 2024, if he is not wanted in any other criminal case. Observations made hereinabove are for the purpose of deciding this criminal appeal and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed-off accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 28.08.2025 SK