Uttarakhand High Court
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
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
PN
5
