Uttarakhand High Court
Abu Tasleem vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-19.03.2026
Judgment delivered on:-23.03.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.680 of 2025
Abu Tasleem ...........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...............Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 10.11.2025, passed by learned
Special Judge (U.A.P. Act)/First Additional Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in FIR No.21 of 2024,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 341, 342,
353, 395, 427, 436, 333, 412 & 120B of IPC, Section 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 3/4 of
the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 &
Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, Abu Tasleem Vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby IInd
Bail Application No.296 of 2025 (in S.S.T. No.01 of 2024)
was rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case involved in the
present criminal appeal are that FIR No.21 of 2024,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 341, 342,
353, 395, 427, 436, 333, 412 & 120B of IPC, Section 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 3/4 of
the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 &
Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1
1967 were registered against unknown persons in Police
Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital on 09.02.2024.
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, arson 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
S.H.O. of Police Station Mukhani, Mukhani’s vehicle and
snatched the service revolver of the S.H.O. which were
not recovered till date. The appellant/applicant has been
arrested on 11.02.2024 on the charge of the aforesaid
offences.
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 came into light on being identified in
CCTV footage.
4. The bail application of the appellant/applicant
has been rejected by the learned Special Judge (U.A.P.
Act)/Ist 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.
5. The objections were called from the State.
Objections have been filed on behalf of the State along
with Delay Condonation Application (IA No.2 of 2025).
For the reasons stated in the affidavit, the delay
condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the
2
objections is condoned. Objections are taken on record.
6. The State in its objections opposed the bail
application by stating that the appellant/applicant was
involved in the serious offence of rioting, arson and
violence that too with the officers of the administration
and Police. It has also been stated that in the statement
of S.O. Neeraj Bhakuni recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. as well as of the police witnesses that the
involvement of appellant/applicant is proved; the 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
appellant/applicant falls within the definition of terrorist
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
damage 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 has falsely been
implicated with the incident; he has no concern with the
alleged violence rioting and arson. He further submitted
that there is no concrete evidence with the prosecution to
connect the appellant/applicant with the incident
happened on 08.02.2024 at Malik-Ka-Bagicha in
3
Haldwani. The role assigned to appellant/applicant is of
general in nature pushing with others and, therefore, he
is entitled to be released on bail by this Court after
setting aside the judgment and order impugned. He
further submitted that merely on the basis of a C.C.T.V.
footage, he cannot be nailed as he was resident of the
area. He is a daily wager by profession. He is in jail since
11.02.2024. He has no criminal antecedent.
10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government
Advocate for the State strongly opposed the appeal and
grant of bail to the appellant/applicant. The role assigned
to the appellant/applicant is that he was a member of
crowd and involved in committing pushing and shoving.
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
and he was identified from the video footage of the
incident.
11. We have perused the record of the case and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is mention of
the name of appellant/applicant who was shown to have
inciting people for pelting stones. He was also spotted in
C.C.T.V. footage.
12. 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 against the appellant/applicant. The
prosecution could not tell us as to who has named or
identified the appellant/applicant even from the C.C.T.V.
footage. It is also in the mind of this Court that since the
appellant has already spent two years in custody in
connection with the alleged FIR, he is entitled to be
released on regular bail, as argued by learned counsel for
4
the appellant/applicant.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 10.11.2025,
passed by learned Special Judge (U.A.P. Act)/First
Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in
FIR No.21 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 395, 427, 436, 333, 412 &
120B of IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1932 and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 & Section 15/16 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, whereby IInd
Bail Application No.296 of 2025 (in S.S.T. No.01 of 2024),
Abu Tasleem Vs. State of Uttarakhand, is hereby set-
aside. The appellant/applicant-Abu Tasleem is directed
to be released immediately on regular bail on his
executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned in connection with FIR No.21 of 2024,
provided he is not required in connection with any other
matter.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
23.03.2026
SK
5
