Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd. Tasleem vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Judgment reserved on:-22.08.2025
Judgment delivered on:-28.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2025
Mohd. Tasleem ...........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. C.K. Sharma and Mr. Nitin Tewari, Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, D.A.G. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
As per Office report, there is a delay of 59 days
in filing the present criminal appeal against the judgment
and order impugned.
2. I have gone through the affidavit filed in
support of the delay condonation application.
3. The reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in
support of the delay condonation application, are
sufficient enough to condone the delay of 59 days in filing
the present criminal appeal.
4. Accordingly Delay Condonation Application (IA
No.2 of 2025) is allowed.
5. Delay of 59 days in filing the criminal appeal
stands condoned.
6. This criminal appeal is directed against the
judgments and orders dated 08.07.2024 and 09.09.2024,
passed by learned Ist Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, Nainital, in FIR No.22 of 2024, under
1
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342,
353, 412, 427, 436, 120-B of IPC, Section 3/4 of the
Uttarakhand Prevention of Damages to Public Property
Act, 1984 & under Section 15/16 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 7 of
the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, registered at
Police Station Banbhulpura, Haldwani, District Nainital,
whereby the learned Judge rejected the bail application of
the appellant.
7. Brief facts of the case involved in the present
criminal appeal are that FIR No.22 of 2024, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342,
353, 412, 427, 436, 120-B of IPC, Section 3/4 of the
Uttarakhand Prevention of Damages to Public Property
Act, 1984 & under Section 15/16 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 7 of
the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, registered at
Police Station Banbhulpura, Haldwani, District Nainital
on 08.02.2024. 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, arson and rioting with the team of
administration and police; hurled petrol bombs, fired
from illegal weapons and snatched 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, their vehicle and snatched the service revolver
of the SHO which were not recovered till date. The
appellant/applicant has been arrested on 11.02.2024 on
the charge of the aforesaid offences.
2
8. 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 was not mentioned in the FIR. He
was arrested on the asking of Haneef Ahmed, who during
search of his home told Police party that the
appellant/applicant also pelted stones on police party
and committed arsoning.
9. The first bail application of the
appellant/applicant was rejected by learned Ist Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital vide order dated
08.07.2024 on which he moved his second bail
application before learned Judge, which too was
dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2025. It is feeling
aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and orders, the
appellant/applicant is before this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application by stating that the appellant/applicant was
involved in serious offence of rioting, arson and violence
that too with the officers of the administration and Police.
It has also been stated that in the statement of Mukesh
Saxena-reporter (independent witness) 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 to kill 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
3
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 is made out against the appellant/applicant.
11. 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.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
13. 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
arson. 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 Haldwani. He further
submitted that the appellant/applicant is under
incarceration since 11.02.2024. His name was taken by
Haneef Ahmed during search of the house of Haneef
Ahmed; therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail by
this Court after setting aside the judgment and order
impugned. He further submitted that merely on the basis
of his name being told by Haneef Ahmed by indicating
that he too was involved in stone pelting and arsoning,
he cannot be nailed.
14. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State strongly opposed the appeal and
grant of bail to the appellant/applicant. He also relied
4
upon the statement of witnesses recorded under Section
161 of Cr.P.C. to nail the appellant/applicant with the
alleged crime and offences. He further submitted that
though the appellant/applicant 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 by Haneef Ahmed when his house was
searched as a person who too participated in stone
pelting and arsoning.
15. We have perused the record of the case and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
Pramod Pathak informant. In statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C, there is no mention of the name of
appellant/applicant. As stated above, he was indicated
with the crime by Haneef Ahmed whose house was being
searched.
16. 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. The
prosecution could not tell us as to what active role would
be attributed to the appellant/applicant. So far no direct
evidence is there against him. Moreover, he is a local
person. It is also in the mind of this Court since the
appellant/applicant has already spent more than one
year six months in custody in connection with the
aforesaid alleged FIR, he is entitled to be released on bail.
17. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgments and orders dated 08.07.2024
and 09.09.2024 impugned in the instant appeal are
hereby set-aside. The appellant/applicant-Mohd. Tasleem
is directed to be released immediately on bail on his
5
executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned in FIR No.22 of 2024, if he is not
wanted in any other criminal case. Observations made
hereinabove are for the purpose of deciding this criminal
appeal and shall have no bearing on the merits of the
trial.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed-off
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
28.08.2025
SK
6
[ad_1]
Source link