The Supreme Court allowed the State of Uttarakhand’s appeal, set aside the High Court order granting default bail to accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub, and held that the investigation had been completed within the extended time.
The Supreme Court recently cancelled the default bail granted to two accused in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in connection with the 2024 Haldwani riots.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeals filed by the State of Uttarakhand. The Court set aside the High Court order granting bail to accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub.
The Supreme Court directed both accused to surrender within two weeks.
Accused Did Not Promptly Challenge Extension Orders
The Supreme Court noted that the accused did not promptly challenge the trial court orders extending the time for investigation.
They also did not immediately challenge the order rejecting their default bail plea.
The Court found that the investigating agency completed the investigation within the extended period. Therefore, it held that the High Court erred in granting default bail.
The Bench also disapproved of the adverse observations made by the High Court against the Investigating Officer.
Supreme Court Disapproves Remarks Against Investigating Officer
The Supreme Court said the High Court should not have criticised the Investigating Officer for the time taken to complete the probe.
The Court further noted that the accused waited till September 2024 before approaching the High Court.
FIR Related To Arson, Rioting And Damage To Public Property
The case arose from an FIR registered in connection with the 2024 riots in Haldwani.
The FIR alleged widespread arson, rioting and damage to public property. It also referred to damage caused to a police station building.
The Supreme Court noted that the case involved several accused. The allegations also included the use of petrol bombs.
The Court said the investigation involved serious challenges because of the magnitude of the crime. It also noted the large number of accused and witnesses.
Even so, the Court found that the investigating agency proceeded with expedition.
Offences Invoked In The FIR
The FIR invoked several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 427, 436 and 120-B.
It also invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
In addition, the FIR cited Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932.
The case also involved Sections 3/25, 4/25 and 7/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, along with Sections 15 and 16 of the UAPA.
Timeline Of Investigation
The police arrested the accused on February 9, 2024.
Before the 90-day period expired, the investigating agency sought more time to complete the investigation.
On May 10, 2024, the trial court passed a detailed order and extended the investigation period by 28 days.
Thereafter, the accused sought default bail. They argued that the agency had failed to complete the investigation within 90 days.
However, the trial court rejected their plea.
The trial court later extended the investigation period again on June 6, 2024 and July 1, 2024.
The investigating agency filed the chargesheet on July 7, 2024, before the extended period expired.
High Court Had Granted Default Bail
The accused challenged the trial court orders before the High Court.
They challenged both the extension orders and the rejection of default bail.
The High Court allowed their appeal and granted default bail.
It also made observations about alleged “carelessness” by the Investigating Officer.
The High Court noted that the investigation moved slowly while the accused remained in judicial custody. It also recorded that, in three months, the agency had examined only eight official witnesses and four public witnesses.
Supreme Court Finds High Court Erred
The State of Uttarakhand challenged the High Court order before the Supreme Court.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred on facts and law.
The Court found that the agency had recorded statements of 65 witnesses during the three-month period from the arrest of the accused.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order granting default bail.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Javed Siddiqui & Anr.
Case Number: SLP(Crl.) No. 908 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 463
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Relevant Laws: Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 427, 436 and 120-B IPC; Sections 3 and 4, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932; Sections 3/25, 4/25 and 7/25, Arms Act, 1959; Sections 15 and 16, UAPA.
Appearances
For Uttarakhand: Mr. Jatinder Kumar Sethi, D.A.G.; Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR; Mr. Vikas Negi, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate; Ms. Ria Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate; Mr. Arya Panwar, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR.
