Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 3 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5691-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2025
03rd July, 2025
Ibrahim Alias Junaid ...........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. with Mr. R.K. Joshi, B.H. 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 04.01.2025, passed by court of
learned Special Judge (UAPA Act)/Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in IA No.2 of
2024 in S.S.T. No.2 of 2024, State Vs. Mahboob Alam
and others, in FIR No.22 of 2024, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 395, 427, 435 and 120-B of IPC
and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public
Property Act, 1984 & under Section 15/16 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25
of the Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of the
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, registered at Police
Station Banbhulpura, Haldwani, District Nainital,
whereby the learned Judge has rejected the bail
application of the applicant.
2. Brief facts of the case involved in the present
criminal appeal are that FIR No.22 of 2024, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 395, 427, 435
and 120-B of IPC, Section 3/4 of the Prevention of
1
2025:UHC:5691-DB
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 15/16
of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were
registered against unknown persons in Police Station
Banbhoolpura, 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, 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 has 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 13.02.2024 on the charge of the aforesaid
offences.
3. It is admitted that the provisions of Section
15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 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 came into light on being identified in
CCTV footage.
4. The bail application of the appellant/applicant
has been rejected by the learned Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital as stated above by
the impugned judgment and order. It is feeling aggrieved
by the aforesaid judgment and order, the
appellant/applicant is before this Court.
2
2025:UHC:5691-DB
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail
application by stating that the appellant/applicant was
involved in 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 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
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.
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
3
2025:UHC:5691-DB
evidence with the prosecution to connect the
appellant/applicant with the incident happened on
08.02.2024 at Malik-Ka- Bagicha in Halwani. He further
submitted that the appellant/applicant is under
incarceration since 13.02.2024. But the
appellant/applicant was shown in CCTV footage only
running, 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 CCTV footage, he cannot be nailed.
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 witnesses 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 he was identified from the video footage
of the incident.
10. We have perused the record of the case and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of
Pramod Pathak informant, A.S.I. Vinod Ghai, S.I. Pankaj
Joshi. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is
mention of the name of appellant/applicant-Ibrahim @
Junaid who was shown running in the street. He was
also spotted in CCTV footage. A country made pistol and
three live cartridges were allegedly recovered from him.
11. Having considered the submissions of both the
learned counsel for the parties and having gone through
4
2025:UHC:5691-DB
the record of the case, this Court is of the view that there
is no direct evidence against the appellant/applicant-
Ibrahim @ Junaid. The prosecution could not tell us as to
except running what active role would be attributed to
the appellant/applicant- Ibrahim @ Junaid even from the
CCTV footage. Moreover, he is a local person and he
might have been spotted in CCTV footage. It is also in the
mind of this Court since the appellant/applicant has
already spent more than one year four months in custody
in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIR, he is
entitled to be released on bail.
12. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 04.01.2025
impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside. The
appellant/applicant- Ibrahim @ Junaid 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.22 of 2024, if he is not wanted in any other criminal
case.
13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed-off
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
03.07.2025
SK
5