In a significant ruling, the Uttaranchal High Court granted default bail to the accused in the Haldwani violence case, highlighting the sluggishness of the investigation. The Court emphasized that the right to life and liberty, as enshrined in the Constitution, must be upheld, and extended custody w
In a crucial development in the ongoing Haldwani violence case, the Uttaranchal High Court has taken a firm stand on the importance of prompt and efficient investigation, especially when it concerns the fundamental right to life and liberty. The High Court, in a recent judgment, granted default bail to the accused persons, highlighting the sluggishness of the investigation process, which resulted in the extension of the accused’s custody beyond the legally permissible period. The Court’s decision underscores the sacred nature of constitutional rights and sends a clear message about the judiciary’s role in protecting these rights against administrative inefficiencies.
Case Background
- FIRs Lodged:
- 08-02-2024: An FIR was registered at Police Station Banbhoolpura, Nainital under various sections of the IPC, Arms Act, Uttarakhand Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 2003, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 against unknown persons.
- 09-02-2024: Another FIR was registered under similar sections of the IPC and the 2003 Act against unknown individuals.
- Incident Details:
- Officials from Nagar Nigam and Police attempted to demolish alleged encroachments in the Banbhoolpura locality, including a Madrasa and a Mosque.
- The officials faced resistance from locals who formed a mob, pelted stones, and allegedly threw petrol bombs.
- The situation escalated, with reports of attempts to set the Banbhoolpura Police Station on fire and the snatching of service pistols and cartridges from officials.
- Arrests and Detention:
- The accused were arrested, and the 90-day investigation period as per Section 167(2)(a)(i) was set to expire on 12-05-2024 and 13-05-2024 respectively.
- On 09-05-2024, UAPA sections were added, allowing the prosecution to extend detention to 180 days.
Legal Proceedings
- On 11-05-2024, the Sessions Judge extended the period of investigation and detention for an additional 28 days.
- On 24-05-2024, the default bail applications of the accused were rejected.
- The appellants challenged these orders, arguing that they were not heard before the extension order, and no sufficient reasons were provided for extending the detention beyond 90 days.
Court’s Analysis
- Judicial Custody: The accused had been in custody since 13-02-2024 and 16-02-2024, and 90 days had passed without substantial progress in the investigation.
- Investigation Sluggishness:
- Only 8 official witnesses and 4 public witnesses were examined over three months.
- Significant delays in sending arms and seized articles for forensic analysis.
- Constitutional Rights: The Court emphasized that the right to life and liberty is integral to the Constitution and that the law does not intend for individuals to suffer due to a lack of prompt investigation.
- Proviso to Section 43-D(2)(b) of UAPA: The Court noted that extending detention under this provision requires specific reasons and prompt investigation, neither of which were adequately demonstrated.
Court’s Judgment
The Court held that the Sessions Judge erred in extending the investigation period and rejecting the bail applications. The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appellants were granted default bail.
Click to Read: Mujjamil v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 291 of 2024, decided on 28-08-2024.
