2024 Haldwani riots case: SC sets aside order granting default bail to 2 accused

The Supreme Court has set aside an order granting default bail to two accused in a case of arson and rioting in Haldwani in 2024 and directed them to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

An accused is entitled to “default bail” if the investigation is not complete within 60 or 90 days, depending on the prescribed punishment for the offence.

“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,” the court said, noting the magnitude of the crime and the challenges faced by the probe agency. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the Uttarakhand Government, which had challenged the state high court’s January 2025 order granting default bail to Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub.

The top court said it was “absolutely unreasonable” of the Uttarakhand High Court to have observed that the investigating agency had not proceeded with the probe at a reasonable pace or that it had acted with lethargy.

“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 bench said in its May 4 order.

Deputy Advocate General of Uttarakhand Jatinder Kumar Sethi appeared for the state in the matter.

The bench noted the FIR was filed in relation to an incident of widespread arson, rioting and damage to public property, including the building of a police station, wherein a large number of accused were arraigned with the allegation of using petrol bombs and other arsenal.

It said a few other incidents of a similar nature had taken place in the nearby areas in relation to which separate FIRs were registered.

“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,” the bench said.

It said the observation by the high court that only eight official witnesses and four public witnesses were examined in three months was factually incorrect.

The bench noted that it has been pointed out by Sethi that in the said period of 90 days, the statements of 65 witnesses were recorded by the investigating agency.

It said the high court failed to advert to the important fact that the accused never challenged the orders of extension of time to complete the investigation and the 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 the charge sheet had been filed,” the bench said.

It further said, “Thus, we are of the opinion that by the time the accused respondents approached the high court, they had lost the right to seek default bail by their acquiescence. Consequently, the impugned order does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby set aside”.

The bench directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, failing which the trial court shall take stringent measures to take them into custody.

“The accused respondents shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail which shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove,” the top court said.

An FIR was registered in February 2024 for the alleged offences, including under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The bench noted the two accused were arrested on February 9, 2024.

It said that the time for the completion of the investigation was extended in the case and, ultimately, a chargesheet against the accused was filed on July 7, 2024, within the extended period which was coming to an end on July 11, 2024.

In September 2024, the accused preferred an appeal before the high court, assailing the trial court orders rejecting their application seeking default bail and extending the time for completion of the investigation.

The high court allowed the appeal, saying, “The manner in which the investigation proceeded clearly reveals the carelessness on the part of the investigating officer as to how slow the investigation proceeded with, that too in such a situation where the appellants were languishing in judicial custody”.