Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd. Zaheer vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on: 30.10.2025
Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.565 of 2024
Mohd. Zaheer --Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani and Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani,
learned counsel for the appellant.
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 19.09.2024, 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 and Sections 15/16
of the UAPA, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected
the bail application no.297 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 23.02.2023, on asking of Riyazul Hasan-
independent witness, categorically stated that the appellant
was present in meeting on 30.01.2023 which was held at
the house of main accused-Abdul Malik, along with other
co-accused persons and the appellant has actively involved
in committing all the misdeed along with the main accused-
Abdul Malik.
4. Appellant had filed the bail application before
the learned Trial Court and the appellant had taken ground
in the bail application that the appellant was out of Station
(Haldwani) at the time of incident i.e. on 08.02.2024, but,
the learned Trial Court had rejected the bail application of
the appellant on the ground that the appellant was involved
in a serious crime vide order dated 19.09.2024. Feeling
aggrieved by aforesaid impugned order, appellant/applicant
has preferred the present appeal.
5. 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 in the statement of Sajid,
Mohd. Yamin, Mohd. Faizal and Furkan under Section 161
Cr.P.C., that they had taken the shop in the land in-
question from the appellant/applicant (Driver of main
accused Abdul Malik). Further, in the statement of Riyajul
Hasan (independent witness), it has been stated that on
30.01.2023 a meeting was held at the house of main
accused Abdul Malik in which other co-accused person and
other people of local were present, where, the plan was
made and executed on the date of incident i.e. 08.02.2024.
All the witnesses mentioned above, disclosed the name of
present appellant/applicant, thus, the involvement of
appellant/applicant is proved. 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, as a conspirator, 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.
6. 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.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. 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
was out of station (Haldwani) at the time of incident. 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 23.02.2024 and has
no criminal history; he is a permanent resident of
Haldwani, District Nainital and there are no chances of his
absconding from the course of justice. He further submits
that till date police officials are unable to submit any
cogent evidence which proves the involvement and present
of the appellant/application, therefore, he is entitled to be
released on bail by this Court after setting aside the
judgment and order impugned.
9. 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
witnesses as stated above in Para 5 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 part of the conspiracy hetched on
30.01.2023.
10. We have perused the record of the case and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the
witnesses. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is
mention of the name of appellant/applicant who was
shown to have instigating the crowd.
11. 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 of conspiracies against the appellant/
applicant. The prosecution could not tell us as to what
active role would be attributed to the appellant/applicant.
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 and eight months in
custody in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIR, he is
entitled to be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.09.2024
impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside.
Appellant/applicant-Mohd. Zaheer 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.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
03.11.2025
PN
