2024 Haldwani Riots Case: Supreme Court Cancels Default Bail, Says HC Committed ‘Grave Error’

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.

Importantly, the Court also held that the accused had forfeited their right to seek default bail. It noted that they did not promptly challenge the orders extending time for investigation or the rejection of their bail plea by the trial court, and instead approached the High Court only in September 2024, after the chargesheet had already been filed.

“By the time the accused approached the High Court, they had lost the right to seek default bail by their acquiescence,” the Bench held.

Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, failing which coercive steps may be taken to secure their custody.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the accused would be at liberty to apply for regular bail, which would be considered independently on its own merits.