Mokeen Ahmad Saifi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

                              Judgment reserved on: 11.02.2026
                             Judgment delivered on: 13.02.2026

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Criminal Appeal No.671 of 2024
Mokeen Ahmad Saifi                                           --Appellant
                                  Versus
State Of Uttarakhand                                       --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Mr. J.S. Virk and Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned D.A.G. with Mr. R.K.
      Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per) There is a delay of 30 days in filing the instant criminal appeal. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application and in view of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos.18725 and 18860 of 2025 Jiyaurrehman etc. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, preferred by the co-accused not to dismiss the appeals/petitions on the ground of delay and to proceed to decide on merits, notwithstanding the delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 30 days. Delay Condonation Application (IA/4/2025) made therefor, is allowed.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.09.2024, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in FIR No.23 of 2024, registered at Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435, 436 and 120-B IPC, r/w Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, r/w Sections 15/16 of the UAPA, whereby second bail application no.281 of 2024 filed by the appellant was rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case involved in the present criminal appeal are that FIR No.23 of 2024 was registered

against unknown persons in Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital on 08.02.2024. 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 is also been mentioned in the FIRs that the rioters even attacked the then police SHO of Police Station Mukhani, Mukhani's vehicle and snatched the service revolver of the SHO. The appellant/applicant has been arrested on 19.02.2024 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 appellant/applicant and other persons who have been arrested during investigation. The name of the appellant/applicant came into light on being identified in CCTV footage.

5. The second bail application of the appellant/ applicant has been rejected by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital as stated above by the impugned judgment and order. It is feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant/applicant is before this Court.

6. The objections were called from the State. Delay in filing the objections is condoned for the reasons stated in the affidavit. Delay condonation application (IA No.2/2024) thus stands disposed of. Objection filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

7. 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 that in the statement of Station Officer Neeraj Bhakuni and S.I. Pramod Pathak, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the involvement of appellant/applicant is proved; the appellant/applicant was very well present at the spot instigating the crowd, pushing and shoving, shouting religious slogans along with the rioters obstructing Government work and committing arson and pelting stones and arson at the rioters' place. The State further stated 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, 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.

8. 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.

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

10. 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 has no concern with the alleged violence rioting and arsoning. He further submitted that appellant is associated with Youth Congress and is Assembly President Haldwani and has falsely been implicated only because of his political alignments. He also submitted that appellant is a resident of Banbhoolpura and was passing by where an agitation/ protest was going on and he was trapped in video footage while no arrest act has been assigned to appellant. He further submitted that the appellant/applicant is under

incarceration since 19.02.2024 and has no criminal history. He is entitled to be released on bail by this Court after setting aside the judgment and order impugned.

11. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General strongly opposed the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant/applicant. He also relied upon the statement of independent witness-Mukesh Saxena (reporter) recorded under Section 161 to nail the appellant/applicant with the alleged crime and offences. He further submitted that though appellant/applicant has not been named in the FIR because the FIR was against unknown persons, but his name was figured during investigation and he was identified from the video footage of the incident.

12. We have perused the record of the case and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Mukesh Saxena, Station Officer Neeraj Bhakuni, S.I. Pramod Pathak, Constable Dilsad Ahmed, Constable Akhilesh Dutt Tiwari, Govind Bisht (Reporter) and Ravindra Kumar. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is mention of the name of appellant/applicant-Mokeen Ahmad Saifi, who was shown to have instigating the crowd. He was also spotted in CCTV footage.

13. Having considered the submissions of both the learned counsel for parties and having gone through the record of case, this Court is of the view that there is no direct evidence against the appellant/applicant-Mokeen Ahmad Saifi. The prosecution could not tell us as to what active role would be attributed to the appellant/applicant. Moreover, he is a local boy and he might have been spotted in CCTV footage. It is also in the mind of this Court since the appellant/applicant has already spent almost two years in custody in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIR, he is entitled to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 06.09.2024

impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside. The appellant/applicant-Mokeen Ahmad Saifi 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.23 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.

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

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.02.2026