Uttarakhand High Court
Shariq Siddiqui 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.584 of 2024
Shariq Siddiqui --Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk and Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned D.A.G. 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 20.09.2024, passed by learned
1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital
in FIR No.21 of 2024, registered at Police Station
Banbhoolpura, District Nainital under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 395, 427, 436, 333
412, 120-B IPC, r/w Section 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1932, r/w Sections 3/4 of the Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, r/w Sections
15/16 of the UAPA, r/w Sections 3/25 & 7/25 of The Arms
Act, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected the
second bail application no.301 of 2024 filed by the
appellant.
2. Facts of the case giving rise to the present
proceedings are that an FIR No.21 of 2024 dated
08.02.2024 was lodged in Police Station Banbhoolpura,
District Nainital. As per the aforesaid FIR, on 08.02.2024
officials from Nagar Nigam, Tehsil and Police went to a
place in Banbhoolpura locality to demolish two structures
allegedly encroachments on public land – one Madarsa and
1
one Mosque, which was already sealed and fenced. When
officials reached the spot they faced resistance from the
local public, who formed a mob and started pelting stones
at the officials and petrol bombs were also thrown in the
process. During this process Police officials also rushed to
the Police Station Banbhoolpura after receiving of reports
that some persons attempted to set the police station on
fire; petrol bombs were thrown on the Police vehicle and the
service pistols and cartridges of Police officials S.O.
Mukhani were also snatched.
3. 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 11.02.2024, on asking of Constable PAC Manoj Rana
whose SLR magazine with 10 cartridges was allegedly
looted by the appellant/applicant, and one SLR Magazine
and 4 live cartridges were recovered on his pointing out.
4. After dismissal of the first bail application,
appellant had filed the second bail application before the
learned Trial Court and the appellant had taken ground in
the second bail application that this Court had accepted
the bail application of some other accused persons under
CRLA No.291 of 2024, but the said appeal was filed in
connection with FIR Nos.22 and 23 of 2024 registered with
P.S. Banbhoolpura, but the facts and circumstances of this
FIR are different from the other FIR Nos.22 and 23 of 2024,
thus, the appellant/applicant cannot avail the advantage in
the present matter and the learned Trial Court rejected the
second bail application of the appellant vide impugned
order dated 20.09.2024. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid
impugned order, appellant/applicant has preferred the
present appeal.
2
5. The objection to the bail application was called
from the State. Delay in filing the objection is condoned for
the reasons stated in the affidavit. Delay condonation
application (IA/2/2024) made therefor, stands disposed of.
Objection filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
6. The State in its objection 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 statements of
Constable Parvez Ali, S.O. Neeraj Bhakuni, Constable 6617
PAC Manoj Rana and Head Constable Kapoor Singh Rana,
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 contended 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 is made out against the appellant/applicant.
7. 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.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
9. 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
3
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 Haldwani. He further submitted that
the appellant/applicant is under incarceration since
11.02.2024 and has no criminal history. There is no
independent witness, and, therefore, he is entitled to be
released on bail by this Court after setting aside the
judgment and order impugned. He further submitted that
without collecting any credible evidence like CCTV footages,
mobile call details and location against the appellant/
applicant and merely on the basis of statement of
interested witnesses by indicating that he too was involved
in stone pelting and arsoning, the appellant/applicant
cannot be nailed as he was resident of the area.
10. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General
strongly opposed the appeal and the grant of bail to the
appellant/applicant. He also relied upon the statements of
Constable Parvez Ali, S.O. Neeraj Bhakuni, Constable 6617
PAC Manoj Rana and Head Constable Kapoor Singh Rana,
recorded under Section 161 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 on his pointing, one SLR
Magazine and 4 live cartridges were recovered.
11. We have perused the record of the case and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
Constable Parvez Ali, S.O. Neeraj Bhakuni, Constable 6617
PAC Manoj Rana and Head Constable Kapoor Singh Rana.
In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is mention of
the name of appellant/applicant who was shown to have
pelting stones. Though, recovery of one SLR Magazine and
04 live Cartridges were shown to have been recovered on
pointing out of the appellant/applicant on 17.02.2024, but
4
during argument, it was admitted by the respondent-State
that SLR is not with the State Police. It is given to
Paramilitary Forces. In this view of the matter, the
snatching of SLR from Constable 6617 Manoj Rana sounds
doubtful.
12. 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. 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.
13. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 20.09.2024
impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside.
Appellant/applicant-Shariq Siddiqui 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 FIR
No.21 of 2024, if he is not wanted in any other criminal
case. The observations made are strictly for deciding this
Criminal Appeal and shall not have any bearing on the
merit of the trial.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
28.08.2025
PN
5
[ad_1]
Source link