2024 Haldwani Riots Case: Supreme Court Refuses To Set Aside 'Mastermind' Abdul Malik's Bail

The Supreme Court refused to set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order granting bail to Abdul Malik, the prime accused in the 2024 Haldwani Riots case.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was told by the state that the case involved the burning of a police station, hurling of petrol bombs and organised violence. "You should focus your energy on securing a conviction rather than challenging the grant of bail," the bench told the state's counsel.

The Bench also questioned the applicability of UAPA. "Even if a mob goes and throws petrol bombs at police station, how is UAPA attracted?" Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked.

When the court was told that a non-reasoned order was passed by the High Court, Justice Bagchi said, L"iberty does not depend on inaccuracy of a court. It depends on the prosecution case".

"In these facts, we don't really require a speaking order from High Court. It is sufficient if application of mind is indicated. He has been in custody for 2 yrs. Even if bail is granted for wrong reason, we should not interfere. We should not interfere", the bench went on to order.

In May this year, the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Uttarakhand High Court granting default bail to two accused in the 2024 Haldwani riots case, holding that the High Court committed a “grave error” in both facts and law. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand and quashed the High Court’s January 8, 2025 order which had granted default bail to accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub.

The case arises out of FIR No. 21 of 2024 registered at Banbhoolpura Police Station in Haldwani in connection with incidents of large-scale rioting, arson, and damage to public property, including a police station building. The offences invoked include serious charges under the IPC, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

The accused were arrested on February 9, 2024. Before the expiry of the statutory 90-day period for investigation, the prosecution had sought and obtained extensions under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA. The chargesheet was ultimately filed on July 7, 2024 within the extended time.

However, the High Court later granted default bail, citing delay and alleged lack of progress in the investigation. It had observed that only a limited number of witnesses were examined during the initial period and criticised the investigating agency for a “sluggish” probe.

Disagreeing with this assessment, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s conclusions were “factually incorrect” and based on an erroneous appreciation of the record. “The observation that only 8 official witnesses and 4 public witnesses had been examined is factually incorrect,” the Court noted, pointing out that statements of as many as 65 witnesses had been recorded within the relevant period.

The Bench emphasised the scale and complexity of the case, noting that it involved widespread violence, multiple accused, and related incidents across nearby areas. In such circumstances, the Court said, the pace of investigation could not be termed lethargic. “It was absolutely unreasonable of the High Court to conclude that the investigating agency had not proceeded with due expedition,” the order stated.

Case Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Abdul Malik

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: July 31, 2026