Supreme Court Cancels Default Bail Of 2 Accused In Haldwani Riots UAPA Case, Disapproves HC's Adverse Comments On Probe
Debby Jain
6 May 2026 1:31 PM IST
The High Court was unreasonable in saying that the investigation was lethargic, the Supreme Court observed.
The Supreme Court recently cancelled the default bail granted to two accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in connection with the Haldwani Riots case of 2024.
Allowing the appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand, the Court cancelled the bail granted to accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub, and directed them to surrender within two weeks.
The Court noted that the accused were not prompt in challenging the trial court's orders extending the time for completion of the investigation and rejecting bail. Since the investigation was completed within the extended time, the Supreme Court faulted the High Court for granting default bail.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta further remarked that the High Court was wrong in casting aspersions on the Investigating Officer over time taken to complete the investigation.
"Having gone through the record, we find that the High Court has completely gone wrong in casting aspersions on the conduct of the Investigating Officer in failing to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days...In our opinion, it was absolutely unreasonable of the High Court to have observed that the investigating agency had not proceeded with investigation at a reasonable pace or that it had acted with lethargy...
Further, the High Court failed to advert to the important fact that the accused respondents never challenged the orders of extension of time and rejection of bail by promptly approaching the High Court and instead waited till September, 2024 before filing the appeal. It is not in dispute that long before the appeal came to be filed, investigation was completed and chargesheet had been filed."
The Court also noted that the FIR was filed in relation to widespread arson, rioting and damage to public property including the building of the police station where many accused were arraigned over alleged use of petrol bombs, etc. Despite the grave challenges that must have been presented by the magnitude of the crime and high number of accused and witnesses, the investigation proceeded with expediency.
The case arose out of an FIR registered over the 2024 riots that took place in Haldwani. This FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 427, 436 and 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, read with Sections 3/25, 4/25 and 7/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 15 and 16 of the UAPA.
The accused were arrested on 9 February, 2024. Before the 90-period from the date of arrest expired, the investigating agency moved an application for extension of time to complete the investigation. On 10 May, 2024, the trial Court passed a detailed order extending the time for completion of investigation by 28 days. Subsequently, the accused moved the court seeking default bail due to non-completion of investigation within 90 days, but their plea was rejected.
Later, the time for completion of investigation was again extended on 6 June and 1 July, 2024. Ultimately, the chargesheet was filed on 7 July, 2024 (before the extended period expired).
Against the trial court orders extending time and rejecting bail, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed their appeal, noting "carelessness" on the part of the investigating officer. It observed that the investigation proceeded at a slow pace, despite the accused languishing in judicial custody. In 3 months' time, statements of only 8 official witnesses and 4 public witnesses were recorded, the Court noted.
Aggrieved by the High Court judgment, the State filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. After hearing the parties, the top Court concluded that the High Court erred both in law and facts, inasmuch as in the 3 months' period since the accused's arrest, statements of 65 witnesses had been recorded.
"Thus, without a doubt, the investigation was proceeding with utmost expediency in a case which would have presented grave challenges to the investigation agency, considering the magnitude of the crime and the large number of accused and witnesses", the Court observed.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.
Appearance: Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, D.A.G., Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. (for Uttarakhand); Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr Adv., Ms. Ria Yadav, Adv., Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Adv., Mr. Arya Panwar, Adv., Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR (for respondents)
Case Title: STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. JAVED SIDDIQUI & ANR., SLP(Crl.) No(s). 908 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 463