Uttarakhand High Court
Shakeel Ahmad Ansari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 21 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-20.03.2025
Judgment delivered on:-21.03.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 617 of 2024
Shakeel Ahmad Ansari ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Zafar Siddique and Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned B.H. for the State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Office report suggests that this appeal has been time
barred, wherefor, the application seeking condonation of delay (IA
No.1 of 2024) has been filed. On being satisfied with the reasons, so
furnished, we allow the application and condone the delay. The
objections filed by the State stand disposed of accordingly.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 21(4) of
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated
04.06.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 10.05.2024 in the prayer clause)
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.
3. 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 appellant was arrested
during investigation.
4. By order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the First Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Bail Application No.153
of 2024 (FIR/Crime No.21 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).
5. 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. 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 appellant stands rejected vide
impugned order dated 04.06.2024. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid
impugned order the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
6. 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.
7. Since, the issue involved has already been decided by this
Court on previous occasion, mentioned hereinabove, and the appellant
has been the person who was left out in the aforesaid matters,
accordingly, we are of the considered view that present appellant also
deserves the same protection.
8. In view of what has been stated above, present appeal is
allowed. Orders dated 04.06.2024 passed by learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in FIR No.21 of 2024 is
accordingly, set-aside qua the appellant. Appellant-Shakeel Ahmad
Ansari is directed to be released on bail on his executing personal bond
and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
SK
