Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

                                  Judgment reserved on:-19.02.2026
                                 Judgment delivered on:- 24.02.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
              Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2025
Mehboob Alam
                                                         --Appellant
                               Versus
State of Uttarakhand
                                                      --Respondent
                                With

              Criminal Appeal No.454 of 2025
Zishan Parvez @ Shebu
                                                         --Appellant
                               Versus
State of Uttarakhand
                                                      --Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. D. Barthwal,
learned counsel for both the appellants.
Mr. B.N. Maulekhi, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.K.
Joshi, learned B.H. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Since the FIR from which these appeals arose is one and the same and the offence alleged against them is also similar, hence both these appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

2. CRLA No.284/2025 is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (UAP Act)/Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in FIR No.21 of 2024 (SST No.01 of 2024), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, 333 &

120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 & Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 as well as under Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Similarly, CRLA No.454/2025 is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2025, passed by Special Judge (UAP Act)/Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in FIR No.21 of 2024 (SST No.01 of 2024), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, 333 & 120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 & Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 as well as under Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Both the FIRs were registered at P.S. Banbhoolpura, District Nainital. The court below has rejected the bail application(s) of both the accused in the above-numbered FIR.

3. The brief facts of the case involved in the present criminal appeals are that FIR No.21 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, 333 & 120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 & Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 as well as under Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was registered against unknown persons in Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital. In the FIR, it has been alleged by the informant that while the team of administration and police went to demolish and remove the illegal construction at Malik-ka-Bagicha in Haldwani on 08.02.2024, several persons assembled there and committed violence, arsoning and rioting with the team of

administration and police; hurled petrol bombs, fired from illegal weapons and snatched the weapons of the police. It has also been mentioned in the FIR that the rioters even attacked the then police SHO of Police Station Mukhani, Mukhani's vehicle and snatched the service revolver of the SHO which were not recovered till date. Both the appellant/applicants were arrested on 09.02.2024 on the charge of the aforesaid offences.

4. It is admitted that the provisions of Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were invoked subsequently during investigation against the appellants/applicants and other persons who have been arrested during investigation.

5. The bail application(s) of the appellant/ applicant has been rejected by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital as stated above by the impugned judgment and order. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellants/applicants are before this Court.

6. The objections were called from the State. Objections filed on behalf of the State are taken on record.

7. The State in its objections opposed the bail application by stating that the appellants were involved in the serious offence of rioting, arsoning and violence that too with the officers of the administration and police. They are named in FIR. It has also been stated that in the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the involvement of appellants/applicants is proved; 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 stated that the criminal activities done by the appellants fall 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 appellants were part of, also as conspirators, 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 appellants. Their presence on the spot was proved by witnesses.

8. It is further submitted by the State that after completion of the investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge-sheets against the appellants/applicants before the court concerned.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants /applicants submitted that appellants have falsely been named in the FIR; they have falsely been implicated with the incident; they have no concern with the alleged violence rioting and arsoning. He further submitted that there is no concrete evidence with the prosecution to connect the appellants with the incident happened on 08.02.2024 at Malik-Ka- Bagicha in Halwani. The appellants are respectable persons of the said area having no concern with the crime. Since no specific role has been assigned to appellants in commission of crime, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail by this Court after setting aside the judgments and orders impugned.

11. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General strongly opposed the appeal and grant of bail to the

appellants. The role assigned to the appellants is that they were a member of group who hatched a conspiracy on 30.01.2023 late night and were present with main accused Abdul Malik on the dead end of night on 30.01.2023 in the house of Abdul Malik. They were in constant touch on mobile with each other. He further submits that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant, police persons and one Narendra Dev Singh have been recorded who unequivocally stated about the involvement of appellant/accused in the crime. He further claimed that he possessed a video clipping showing involvement of appellants.

12. We have perused the record of the case and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. They have been booked only on the basis of CCTV footage.

13. Moreover, on the last date, opportunity was granted to the State to produce the video referred to in the statement of one Mr. Narender Dev. However, today, learned State Counsel made a categorical statement that no such video is available. This further strengthens the case of appellants.

14. 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 even of conspiracy against the appellants. The prosecution could not tell us as to who has named or identified the appellants. The claim of video-clippings showing involvement of appellants also turned out fiasco and the learned D.A.G. today in Court denied having any such video-clippings with independent witnesses Shri Narender Dev. It is also in the mind of this Court since the appellants has already spent more

than two years in custody in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIRs, they are entitled to be released on bail.

15. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that appellants are entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, both the criminal appeals are allowed. The judgments and orders, passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital impugned in the instant appeals are hereby set-aside. The appellant/ applicant-Mehboob Alam and Zishan Parvez @ Shebu are directed to be released immediately, if not wanted in any other criminal case, on bail on each of them executing personal bond in each case and furnishing two-two reliable sureties, in each matter, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with the FIR Number 21, details whereof have been given in paragraph no.2 of this judgment.

16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.02.2026 Rdang