Uttarakhand High Court
Bhola @ Sohail And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 11 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-07.03.2025
Judgment delivered on:-11.03.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2024
Bhola @ Sohail and Others ......Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2024
Jawed Qureshi and Others ......Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2024
Shanwaz @ Shanu and Another ......Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2024
Raeesh Ahmad Ansari @ Dattu ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal No. 681 of 2024
Abdul Majid and Others ......Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......Respondents
With
Criminal Appeal No. 685 of 2024
Mohd. Suhaib @ Shebu and Others ......Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. C.K. sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned D.A.G with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned
B.H. for the State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Since a common question of law is raised in these
appeals, hence, these are being heard and decided together by this
common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of CRLA
No.678 of 2024 are taken up for consideration.
2. Office report suggests that these appeals have been time
barred, wherefor, the applications seeking condonation of delay (IA
Nos.1 of 2024) has been filed in each case. On being satisfied with the
reasons, so furnished, we allow the applications (IA Nos.1 of 2024)
and condone the delay. The objections filed by the State stand
disposed of accordingly.
3. CRLA No.678 of 2024 is filed by the appellants under
Section 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the
orders dated 10.05.2024, 06.06.2024 and 01.07.2024, passed by
learned First 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, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342,
353, 412, 427, 436, 120-B IPC r/w Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, r/w Section 7 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act, 1932, r/w Sections 3/25, 4/25, 7/25 of The
Arms Act, r/w Sections 15 & 16 of the UAPA, whereby, the learned
trial court has extended the time period of investigation and detention
beyond 90 days and order dated 01.07.2024, whereby the learned trial
court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellants for
release on default bail.
4. 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. The appellants were arrested
during investigation.
5. By orders dated 10.05.2024 and 06.06.2024 passed by the
First Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in ST No.
28 of 2024, has invoked the provisions envisaged under order under
Section 43-D(2)(b) of U.A.P.A. Act, 1967, which gave right to the
prosecution to get the period of detention extended to a period of
maximum of 180 days under the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b).
6. On 10.05.2024, an application was moved qua FIR No.21
of 2024 explaining therein the progress of investigation so far. It is also
contended in the said application that further investigation is yet to be
concluded. On the said application, a report was submitted by the
A.D.G.C. District Nainital to the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Haldwani, who, after hearing both the parties allowed the application for
extension of period of investigation and detention for a further period of
28 days in FIR No.21 of 2024 Police Station Banbhoolpura vide order
dated 10.05.2024. Since the period of completion of investigation and
detention was extended beyond 90 days by learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, default bail application moved by the
appellants stands rejected vide impugned order dated 01.07.2024.
Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid impugned orders the appellants have
preferred the present appeal.
7. The controversy involved in present matters has already
been dealt with and discussed in great detail by this very Court in CRLA
No.495 of 2024 (Javed Siddiqui and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Another) decided on 08.01.2025. The said judgment was also based
upon another judgment by this very Court in CRLA No. 291 of 2024
(Mujjamil and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another) and Batch
decided on 28.08.2024, wherein, the Division Bench held out that in
view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jigar @ Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya Vs. State of Gujarat reported in
(2023) 6 SCC 484, wherein, it was held out that mandatory notice and
mandatory presence of the accused is there in the Court while the
application of extension is considered by the Court. Non-production of
accused on the date on which the Special Court consider the request for
grant of extension of time and failure of the Special Court to procure the
presence of the accused at the time of consideration of the reports
submitted by Public Prosecutor for grant of extension of time to
complete the investigation and failure to give notice to the accused on
the report submitted by the Public Prosecutor is in violation of the
mandate of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State reported in (1994) 5
SCC 410.
8. Since, the issue involved has already been decided by this
Court on previous occasion, mentioned hereinabove, and the appellants
have been the persons who have been left out in the aforesaid matters,
accordingly, we are of the considered view that present appellants also
deserve the same protection.
9. In view of what has been stated above, present appeals are
allowed. Orders dated 10.05.2024, 06.06.2024 and 01.07.2024, passed
by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital
in FIR No.21 of 2024 are accordingly, set-aside qua the appellants. All
the appellants herein are directed to be released on bail on each of them
executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, by each
one of them, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned.
10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
11.03.2025
PN
