Ayaz Ahmad v. State of Uttarakhand

2025 in connection with FIR No.23 of 2024 registered at Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435, 436, 120-B, r/w Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 15/16 of the UAPA, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellant.

2. Facts of the case giving rise to the present proceedings are that an FIR No.23 of 2024 was lodged on

09.02.2024 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 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 1 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 21.02.2024. It is the case of prosecution that the name of applicant came into light on the basis of statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. S.O. Neeraj Bhakuni, S.O. Pramod Pathak, Constable Surendra Nainwal and Constable Kamal Pant.

4. Appellant had filed the bail application before the learned Trial Court and the appellant had taken ground in the bail application that no specific role was assigned to him in commission of crime; and no offence against him is made out. But, the learned Trial Court had rejected the bail application of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was involved in a heinous crime and accordingly it rejected the bail order dated

17.09.2025. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid impugned order, appellant/applicant has preferred the present appeal.

5. 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. The police witnesses viz. SHO Neeraj Bhakuni, Pramod Pathak, Head Constable Kamal Pant, 2 Constable Dilshad, Mr. Ganesh Bhatt, Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Haldwani etc. have found the role of applicant in commission of stones pelting, instigating the crowd, pushing and shoving, shouting religious slogans and arsoning. All the witnesses mentioned above, disclosed the name of present appellant/applicant, thus, his involvement is proved. The State further contested 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, as a conspirator, 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; and no offence is made out against him. He further submitted that there is no concrete evidence with the prosecution to connect the appellant/applicant with incident happened on 08.02.2024 at Malik-Ka- Bagicha Haldwani. He further submitted that the appellant/ applicant is under incarceration since 21.02.2024 and has no criminal history; he is a permanent resident of Haldwani, District Nainital and there are no chances of 3 his absconding from the course of justice. He further submits that till date police officials are unable to submit any cogent evidence which proves the involvement and present of the appellant/application, therefore, 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 the grant of bail to the appellant/applicant. He also relied upon the statement of witnesses as stated above under Section 161 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.

10. We have perused the record of the case and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is mention of the name of appellant/applicant who was shown to have instigating the crowd.

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. The prosecution could not tell us as to what active role would be attributed to the appellant/applicant. It is also in the mind of this Court since the appellant/applicant has already spent more than one year and nine 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 17.09.2025 impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside. 4 Appellant/applicant- Ayaz Ahmad is directed to be released 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.23 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.

13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

08.12.2025 Rdang 5