Uttarakhand High Court
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 &
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
