Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.453 of 2025
Shanwaz @ Shanu
--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)
The present criminal appeal is barred by
limitation of 293 days’ wherefor delay condonation
application (IA No.1/2025) 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 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.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 09.09.2024, passed by learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital
in FIR No.23 of 2024, 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 &
1
Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967. The court below has rejected the Bail Application
No.284 of 2024 of the accused.
3. The brief facts of the case involved in the
present criminal appeals are that FIR No.23 of 2024 for
the offences under 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 Mehboob Alam , Shakeel Ansari and
against unknown persons in Police Station
Banbhoolpura, District Nainital. 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. The appellant/applicant has been arrested on
20.02.2024 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 during investigation.
5. The bail application 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 feeling aggrieved by
2
the aforesaid judgment and order, the
appellant/applicant is before this Court.
6. The objections were called from the State.
Objections have been filed along with delay condonation
applications (IA Nos.5/2026 & 6/2026. For the reasons
stated, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the objections is
condoned. Objections filed on behalf of the State are taken
on record.
7. 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.
8. It is further submitted by the State that after
completion of the investigation, the investigating officer
has filed charge-sheet against the appellant/applicant
before the court concerned.
3
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 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. He has no
concern with the crime. The main accused and the
alleged conspirator of the crime Mr. Abdul Malik has also
been released on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 16.04.2026. 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.
11. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
strongly opposed the appeal and grant of bail to the
appellant/applicant. He submits that the statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant, police persons
and one Mukesh Saxena (independent witness/reporter)
and Pankaj Agrawal (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 because
the FIR was against unknown persons, but his name was
figured during investigation.
12. We have perused the record of the case and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has
been booked only on the basis of CCTV footage. Further,
4
he has no criminal history.
13. 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 more than two years in
custody in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIR, he
is entitled to be released on bail.
14. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is
that appellant is entitled to be released on bail in the
present matter. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgments and orders, passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital
impugned in the instant appeal are hereby set-aside. The
appellant/ applicant-Shanwaz @ Shanu 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 reliable sureties, each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned.
15. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
23.04.2026
AK
5
