Uttarakhand High Court
Raeesh Ahmad Ansari Alias Dattu 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.583 of 2025
Raeesh Ahmad Ansari Alias Dattu ...........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...............Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate General 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 17.09.2025, passed by learned
Special Judge (U.A.P. Act)/First Additional Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Special Sessions
Trial No.03 of 2024, whereby the Bail Application No.230
of 2025, filed by the appellant under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435, 436 & 120B of IPC and
Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 & Section 15/16 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Raeesh Ahmad Ansari @
Dattu Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, was rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case involved in the
present criminal appeal are that FIR No.23 of 2024,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435,
436, 120B, Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 15/16 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were registered against
unknown persons in Police Station Banbhoolpura,
District Nainital on 09.02.2024. In the FIR, it has been
1
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 SHO of Police
Station Mukhani, Mukhani’s vehicle and snatched the
service revolver of the SHO which were not recovered till
date. The appellant/applicant has been arrested on
19.02.2024 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,
which were filed and 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 Pankaj Agrawal-reporter (independent witness)
2
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
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 CCTV
footage, he cannot be nailed as he was resident of the
area. He is a daily wager by profession. He is in jail since
3
19.02.2024. He has no criminal antecedent.
10. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
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
CCTV 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 CCTV
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
the appellant/applicant.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.09.2025,
passed by learned Special Judge (U.A.P. Act)/First
Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in
Special Sessions Trial No.03 of 2024, whereby the Bail
Application No.230 of 2025, filed by the appellant under
4
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435, 436 &
120B of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage
to Public Property Act, 1984 & Section 15/16 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Raeesh Ahmad
Ansari @ Dattu Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, is
hereby set-aside. The appellant/applicant-Raeesh Ahmad
Ansari alias Dattu 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.23 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.)
13.02.2026
SK
5