Uttarakhand High Court
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
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
PN
5