Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd Nizam 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.582 of 2024
Mohd Nizam --Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk and Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned D.A.G. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 20.09.2024, passed by learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital
in FIR No.21 of 2024, registered at Police Station
Banbhoolpura, District Nainital under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 395, 427, 436, 333
412, 120-B IPC, r/w Section 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1932, r/w Sections 3/4 of the Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, r/w Sections
15/16 of the UAPA, r/w Sections 3/25 & 7/25 of The Arms
Act, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected the
second bail application no.300 of 2024 filed by the
appellant.
2. Facts of the case giving rise to the present
proceedings are that an FIR No.21 of 2024 dated
08.02.2024 was lodged in Police Station Banbhoolpura,
District Nainital. As per the aforesaid FIR, on 08.02.2024
officials from Nagar Nigam, Tehsil and Police went to a
place in Banbhoolpura locality to demolish two structures
allegedly encroachments on public land - one Madarsa and
one Mosque, which was already sealed and fenced. When
officials reached the spot they faced resistance from the
local public, who formed a mob and started pelting stones
at the officials and petrol bombs were also thrown in the
process. During this process Police officials also rushed to
the Police Station Banbhoolpura after receiving of reports
that some persons attempted to set the police station on
fire; petrol bombs were thrown on the Police vehicle and the
service pistols and cartridges of Police officials S.O.
Mukhani were also snatched.
3. 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 11.02.2024, on asking of Samir-injured who
recognized the appellant/applicant in the light of flames
among the people who were pelting stones and setting fire
to bottles filled with petrol and firing from guns, and from
his possession, one country made pistol 315 Bore, 8 live
cartridges and four empty cartridges were recovered.
4. After dismissal of the first bail application,
appellant had filed the second bail application before the
learned Trial Court and the appellant had taken ground in
the second bail application that this Court had accepted
the bail application of some other accused persons under
CRLA No.291 of 2024, but the said appeal was filed in
connection with FIR Nos.22 and 23 of 2024 registered with
P.S. Banbhoolpura, but the facts and circumstances of this
FIR are different from the other FIR Nos.22 and 23 of 2024,
thus, the appellant cannot be availed the advantage in the
present matter and the learned Trial Court rejected the
second bail application of the appellant vide impugned
order dated 20.09.2024. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid
impugned order, appellant/applicant has preferred the
present appeal.
5. The objection to the bail application was called
from the State. Delay in filing the objection is condoned for
the reasons stated in the affidavit. Delay condonation
application (IA/2/2024) made therefor, stands disposed of.
Objection filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
6. The State in its objection opposed the bail
application by stating that the appellant/applicant was
involved in the serious offence of rioting, arsoning and
violence that too with the officers of the administration and
police. It has also been stated that in the statement of
Samir-injured (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 of killing them by using
petrol bombs etc. by demonstrating criminal force. The
State further contested 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.
7. 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.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
9. 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
arsoning. 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 and has no criminal
history. But the role assigned to appellant/applicant is of
firing bullets, pelting stones and arsoning with others
named in the statement of Samir, and, therefore, he is
entitled to be released on bail by this Court after setting
aside the judgment and order impugned. He further
submitted that without collecting any credible evidence like
CCTV footages, mobile call details and location against the
appellant/applicant and merely on the basis of statement
of Samir by indicating that he too was involved in stone
pelting and arsoning, he cannot be nailed as he was
resident of the area.
10. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General
strongly opposed the appeal and the grant of bail to the
appellant/applicant. He also relied upon the statement of
witness-Samir (independent witness) recorded under
Section 161 to nail the appellant/applicant with the alleged
crime and offences. He further submitted that though he
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 Samir. Further, from
possession of appellant/applicant, one country made pistol
315 Bore, 8 live cartridges and four empty cartridges were
recovered.
11. We have perused the record of the case and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Samir-
injured (independent witness), Constable Bhupendra Singh
Jeshtha and Constable Parvez Ali. In statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is mention of the name of
appellant/applicant who was shown to have pelting stones.
As stated above, he was implicated with the crime by
Samir, who was also injured in the alleged incident.
12. 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. 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.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 20.09.2024
impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside.
Appellant/applicant-Mohd. Nizam 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.21 of
2024, if he is not wanted in any other criminal case. The
observations made are strictly for deciding this Criminal
Appeal and shall not have any bearing on the merit of the
trial.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
28.08.2025
PN
