Uttarakhand High Court
24 April vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3049-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2024
24 April, 2025
Aslam Choudheri
--Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, 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)
This criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 23.09.2024, passed by learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital
whereby two bail applications nos.290 of 2024 and 291
of 2024 have been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case involved in the
present criminal appeal are that two FIRs, one FIR No.22
of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353,
395, 427, 435 & 120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984,
Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and
Section 15/16 of Unlawful Activities Prevention (Act) and
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) were
1
2025:UHC:3049-DB
registered against unknown persons in Police Station
Banbhoolpura, District Nainital on 08.02.2024. In these
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 is also been mentioned in the
FIRs 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 09.02.2024 on the charge of the aforesaid
offences.
3. It is admitted that the provisions of Section
15/16 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention (Act) 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 applications of the
appellant/applicant have been rejected by the learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital as
stated above by the impugned common 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. 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
2
2025:UHC:3049-DB
with the officers of the administration and police. It has
also been stated that in the statement of Aman Ansari
(independent witness) recorded under Sections 161 and
164 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, caused
irreparable damaged to the property of nation and it
created fear in the mind of general public. Therefore,
offence in law has already made out against the
appellant/applicant.
6. 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.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
8. 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 referred
to the statement of Aman Ansari under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C. and argued that even in these statements,
3
2025:UHC:3049-DB
the name of appellant/applicant-Aslam Choudheri is not
there. He further submitted that the appellant/applicant
is under incarceration since 09.02.2024 and he is
entitled to be released on bail by this Court after setting
aside the judgment and order impugned.
9. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate
General strongly opposed the appeal and grant of bail to
the appellant/applicant. He also relied upon the
statement of witness-Aman Ansari recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. to nail the
appellant/applicant with the alleged crime and offences.
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.
10. We have perused the record of the case and the
statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
of Aman Ansari. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C,
there is no mention of the name of appellant/applicant-
Aslam Choudheri. In statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. also the name of appellant/applicant-Aslam
Choudheri is not found.
11. 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-
Aslam Choudheri. The prosecution could not tell us as to
who has named or identified the appellant/applicant-
Aslam Choudheri even from the CCTV footage. It is also
in the mind of this Court since the appellant/applicant
has already spent more than 14 months in custody in
connection with the aforesaid alleged FIRs, he is entitled
4
2025:UHC:3049-DB
to be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.09.2024
impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside. The
appellant/applicant-Aslam Choudheri is directed to be
released immediately on bail on his executing personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in both
the FIR Nos.22 of 2024 and 23 of 2024, if he is not
wanted in any other criminal case.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
24.04.2025
AK
5