Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown 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.09 of 2025
Jiyaurrehman
--Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2025
Jiyaurrehman
--Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Since the appellant in both these appeals is
one and the same and the offence alleged against him is
also the same, hence these are taken up together and
decided by this common judgment.
2. CRLA No.9/2025 is barred by limitation of 125
days’ wherefor delay condonation application (IA
No.2/2025) has been filed. Objection to the delay
condonation application has also been filed. However, in
view of the fact that the appellant had approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where vide judgment and
order dated 12.12.2025 in Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) Nos.18725/2025 and 18860 of 2025, a
1
direction was given by the Apex Court to decide the
appeal pending before this Court on merits,
notwithstanding the delay that has occasioned in filing
the appeals, we condone the delay in filing this appeal.
We accordingly proceed to decide this appeal on its
merits.
3. CRLA No.9/2025 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 02.08.2024, passed by learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District
Nainital in 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. Similarly, CRLA No.10/2025 is directed against the
judgment and order dated 13.11.2024, passed by 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in
FIR No.23 of 2024 (S.T. No.30 of 2024) for the offences
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435,
436 & 120B 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. Both the
FIRs were registered at P.S. Banbhoolpura, District
Nainital. The court below has rejected the bail
application(s) of the accused in both the FIRs.
4. 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,2
1932 as well as under Section 15/16 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as well as FIR No.23 of
2024 (S.T. No.30 of 2024) for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435, 436 & 120B 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 were registered against
unknown persons in Police Station Banbhoolpura,
District Nainital. In the FIRs, 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 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
17.02.2024 on the charge of the aforesaid offences.
5. 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 during investigation.
6. The bail application(s) of the appellant/
applicant has been rejected by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital as stated
above by the impugned judgment and order. It is feeling3
aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the
appellant/applicant is before this Court.
7. The objections were called from the State.
Objections filed on behalf of the State are taken on record.
8. The State in its objections 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 statement
of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 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
“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, as
conspirator, 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.
9. It is further submitted by the State that after
completion of the investigation, the investigating officer
has filed charge-sheets against the appellant/applicant
before the court concerned.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4
11. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant
submitted that appellant/applicant was not named in the
FIR; (though named in FIR No.21 of 2024 only) he has
falsely been implicated with the incident; he has no
concern with the alleged violence rioting and arsoning.
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 Halwani. The appellant runs a Garment Shop
in the said area and he has no concern with the crime.
Since no specific role has been assigned to
appellant/applicant in commission of crime, therefore, he
is entitled to be released on bail by this Court after
setting aside the judgment and order impugned.
12. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
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 group
who hatched a conspiracy on 30.01.2023 late night and
was present with main accused Abdul Malik on dead end
of night on 30.01.2023 in the house of Abdul Malik. He
further submits that the statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of complainant, police persons and one Pankaj
Saxena (independent witness/reporter) have been
recorded who unequivocally stated about the involvement
of appellant/accused in the crime. He further submitted
that though he has not been named in the FIR (only in
one FIR he was named) because the FIR was against
unknown persons, but his name was figured during
investigation.
13. We have perused the record of the case and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has
5
been booked only on the basis of CCTV footage. Further,
he has no criminal history.
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
appellant/applicant. The prosecution could not tell us as
to who has named or identified the appellant/applicant.
It is also in the mind of this Court since the
appellant/applicant has already spent around two years
in custody in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIRs,
he is entitled to be released on bail.
15. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is
that appellant is entitled to be released on bail in
connection with both these present matters. Accordingly,
both the criminal appeals are allowed. The judgments
and orders, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital impugned in the
instant appeals are hereby set-aside. The appellant/
applicant-Jiyaurrehman is directed to be released
immediately, if he is not wanted in any other criminal
case, on bail on his 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 following FIR
Numbers:-
CRLA FIR No.21 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149,
No.9 307, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 395, 427, 436, 333,
of 412 & 120B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law
2025 Amendment Act, Section 3/4 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 & Section
15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, P.S. Banbhoolpura, District Nainital6
CRLA FIR No.23 of 2024 (S.T. No.30/2024), under
No.10 Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435,
of 436 & 120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention
2025 of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 & Section
15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, P.S. Banbhoolpura, District Nainital
16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
13.02.2026
AK
7