Aslam Choudheri vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 March, 2026

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

                          Judgment reserved on: 18.03.2026
                         Judgment delivered on: 20.03.2026
     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                 Criminal Appeal No.634 of 2024
Aslam Choudheri                                              --Appellant
                                  Versus
State Of Uttarakhand                                       --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani and Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned counsel for
      the appellant.
      Mr. J.S. Virk, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned
      Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.10.2024, 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, r/w Sections 15/16 of the UAPA, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected the bail application no.320 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 09.02.2024, on the basis of statement of Constable Parvez Ali and Narendra Dev Singh (independent witness), who stated that the appellant/applicant was very well present at the spot instigating and actively involved in committing the crime at the place of incident obstructing Government Work and committing arson and pelting stones.

4. After investigation, Investigation Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused on 07.07.2024. Appellant filed bail application No.320 of 2024 before the learned Trial Court on the ground that at the time of incident, he was not present at the place of incident rather he had gone with his wife to Sushila Tiwari Hospital for her CT Scan and further there is no independent evidence of appellant/applicant being at the place of incident, thus, there was no chance of his being involved in the matters. Learned Trial Court rejected the bail application of the appellant vide impugned order dated 03.10.2024. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid impugned order, appellant/applicant has preferred the present appeal.

5. The objection to the bail application was called from the State. Delay in filing the objection is condoned for the reasons stated in the affidavit. Delay condonation

application (IA/2/2024) made therefor, stands disposed of. Objection filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

6. 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 statements of Constable Parvez Ali and Narendra Dev Singh (independent witness), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the involvement of appellant/applicant is proved; appellant/ applicant was present at the spot instigating and actively involved in committing the crime at the place of incident obstructing Government work and committing arson and pelting stones and arson at the rioters' place. The State further contended 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.

7. 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.

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

9. 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 around 50 co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 giving a finding that the manner in which

investigation proceeded clearly reveals the carelessness on the part of Investigating Officer. He also submitted that there is no evidence regarding the participation of appellant through any means in the alleged incident. He further submitted that the appellant/applicant is under incarceration since 09.02.2024 and has no criminal history. He is entitled to be released on bail by this Court after setting aside the judgment and order impugned.

10. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General strongly opposed the appeal and grant of bail to the appellant/applicant. He also relied upon the statements of Station Officer Neeraj Bhakuni, Constable Parvez Ali and Narendra Dev Singh (independent witness) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 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. He also submitted that the appellant/ applicant had a long criminal antecedent, therefore, seeing the gravity of the offence and also his involvement in the present case, he is not entitled for any relief.

11. We have perused the record of the case and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Station Officer Neeraj Bhakuni, Constable Parvez Ali and Narendra Dev Singh (independent witness), there is mention of the name of appellant/applicant who was shown to have instigating and actively involved in committing the crime at the place of incident obstructing Government Work and committing arson and pelting stones. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant clarified so far as the alleged criminal history is concerned by saying that three cases were shown by the respondent-State against the appellant/ applicant. Out of these three cases, one is of present one FIR No.21 of 2024, registered with P.S. Banbhoolpura; in FIR No.89 of 2018 he has already been acquitted; while FIR

No.98 of 2020 was related to Covid-19 incident under Disaster Management Act. All FIRs were registered in P.S. Banbhoolpura.

12. 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. The prosecution could not tell us as to what active role would be attributed to the appellant/applicant. So far 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 two years in custody in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIR, he is entitled to be released on bail.

13. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 03.10.2024 impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside. Appellant/applicant-Aslam Choudheri 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.

14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.03.2026