The Supreme Court has overturned a Uttarakhand High Court order that granted default bail to two accused in the Haldwani violence case, holding that the High Court wrongly criticized the pace of investigation despite the seriousness and scale of the incident.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the investigating agency had acted with “utmost expediency” considering the large number of accused persons and witnesses involved in the case.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from FIR No. 21 of 2024 registered at Banbhoolpura Police Station in Haldwani after incidents involving alleged arson, rioting, and damage to public property, including a police station building. The accused were booked under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Respondents Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub were arrested on February 9, 2024. Before completion of the initial 90-day investigation period, the prosecution sought extension of time under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA to continue the investigation. The trial court granted the extension after hearing counsel representing the accused.
Later, the accused moved an application for default bail, arguing that the investigation had not been completed within the statutory period. The trial court rejected the plea. Eventually, the chargesheet was filed on July 7, 2024 within the extended period permitted by the court.
The Uttarakhand High Court had granted default bail to the accused in January 2025. While doing so, the High Court observed that the investigation had progressed slowly and noted that only a limited number of witnesses had been examined during the first three months.
The High Court had remarked that the manner of investigation reflected “carelessness” and a “sluggish” approach on the part of the investigating officer.
Disagreeing with the High Court, the Supreme Court said those findings were factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.
“The High Court has completely gone wrong in casting aspersions on the conduct of the Investigating Officer,” the Bench observed.
The Court noted that the violence case involved widespread rioting, use of petrol bombs, damage to public property, and several accused persons. It also recorded that similar incidents had taken place in nearby areas, leading to separate FIRs.
Importantly, the Bench pointed out that the High Court’s statement that only 12 witnesses had been examined was incorrect. According to the State, statements of 65 witnesses had actually been recorded within the 90-day period.
The Supreme Court further observed that the accused did not promptly challenge the extension orders or the rejection of default bail. Instead, they approached the High Court months later, by which time the chargesheet had already been filed.
The Bench said that due to this delay, the accused had “lost the right to seek default bail by their acquiescence.”
Setting aside the High Court’s January 8, 2025 order, the Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. It also said that if they failed to do so, the trial court should take “stringent measures” to secure their custody.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the accused would remain free to apply for regular bail, which should be decided independently on its own merits.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Javed Siddiqui & Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 908 of 2026
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision Date: May 4, 2026
