[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Abdul Malik vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
2026:UHC:2713-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
16TH APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.161 of 2025
Abdul Malik ....Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate
with Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate
and Ms. Amitoz Kaur, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General
with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Assistant
Government Advocate.
(Per : Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
Appellant-Abdul Malik is in judicial custody for
the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149,
307, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 395, 427, 436, 333,
412, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 7 of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Section 3 and
Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984, Section 15 read with Section 16 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section
3 read with Section 25, Section 4 read with Section 25
and Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act,
1959 in Case Crime No.21 of 2024, registered at Police
1
2026:UHC:2713-DB
Station Banbhoolpura, Haldwani, District Nainital.
2. On 06.02.2025, learned Special Judge
(U.A.P., Act)/IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani,
District Nainital has rejected the bail application of the
appellant, filed in Special Sessions Trial No.1 of 2024.
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that
on 08.02.2024, the police team was present during the
demolition proceedings of the mosque located in the
Malik Ka Bagicha. Thousands of people were present at
the spot. The mob pelted stones at the police while
shouting inflammatory slogans. The government and
private vehicles were burnt by them. They had set the
police station on fire. They threw petrol bombs and
fired at the police. Before the said incident, a meeting
was held at the house of the appellant on the night of
30.01.2024.
4. Heard Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned
Deputy Advocate General for the respondent.
5. Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate, has
contended that the appellant was not present in the
State of Uttarakhand on the date of the incident. He
was in Noida and Delhi. There is no direct evidence
regarding the alleged conspiracy. The entire allegations
2
2026:UHC:2713-DB
against the appellant do not inspire confidence and the
possibility of false implication cannot be completely
ruled out. Appellant has not been convicted by any
court in any criminal case. He has been in custody
since 23.02.2024. He is a permanent resident of
District Nainital, therefore, there is no possibility of his
absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed,
therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the
evidence. Co-appellants including the co-appellant
Abdul Moied, the son of the appellant, have already
been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
6. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy
Advocate General appearing for the respondent, has
opposed the appeal and submitted that the present
appellant and his son Abdul Moied were the main
conspirators of the incident. However, he has fairly
conceded that as per the investigation, the appellant
was not present at the spot on 08.02.2024, and, the
co-appellant Abdul Moied has been granted bail by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
7. Having considered the submissions of the
parties, this Court is of the view that the appellant is
entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
3
2026:UHC:2713-DB
8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal
(CRLA No.161 of 2025) is allowed. The order dated
06.02.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (U.A.P.,
Act)/IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District
Naintal in Special Sessions Trial No.1 of 2024, is hereby
set aside. The appellant-Abdul Malik is directed to be
released on bail, if he is not wanted in any other
criminal case, on furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge,
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Appellant shall attend the trial court regularly
and he shall not seek any unnecessary
adjournment;
(ii) Appellant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person,
acquainted with the facts of this case.
(iii) Appellant shall not leave the country without
the previous permission of the trial court.
__________________
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
____________
Alok Mahra, J.
Date: 16.04.2026
JKJ/Pant
