The Supreme Court of India set aside default bail granted in the Haldwani riot case, directing accused to surrender, holding the Uttarakhand High Court wrongly criticised the investigating officer for delay beyond 90 days.
The Supreme Court has set aside an order that granted default bail to two accused in a case relating to arson and rioting in Haldwani in 2024. It also directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. A person is entitled to “default bail” when the investigation is not completed within the statutory timelines 60 or 90 days depending on the punishment prescribed for the offence.
In its decision, the Supreme Court said the Uttarakhand High Court erred in questioning the investigating officer for allegedly failing to finish the investigation within 90 days.
The apex court observed:
“Having gone through the record, we find that the high court has completely gone wrong in casting aspersions on the conduct of the investigating officer in failing to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days,”
The court had to consider the scale of the crime and the challenges faced by the investigating agency.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by the Uttarakhand government. The government had challenged the High Court’s January 2025 order granting default bail to Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub.
The Supreme Court described the High Court’s observations as “absolutely unreasonable,” particularly its remarks that the investigating agency did not move at a reasonable pace or acted with “lethargy.”
The Supreme Court further stated:
“Thus, without a doubt, the investigation was proceeding with utmost expediency in a case which would have presented grave challenges to the investigation agency, considering the magnitude of the crime and the large number of accused and witnesses.”
Deputy Advocate General of Uttarakhand Jatinder Kumar Sethi appeared for the State.
The Bench noted that the FIR related to a large-scale incident of arson, rioting, and damage to public property, including the burning of a police station. It involved a large number of accused, with allegations that they used petrol bombs and other weapons.
The court also recorded that similar incidents occurred in nearby areas, and separate FIRs were registered for those events.
The Supreme Court reiterated:
“Having gone through the record, we find that the high court has completely gone wrong in casting aspersions on the conduct of the investigating officer in failing to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days.”
It also said the High Court’s premise that only eight official witnesses and four public witnesses were examined in three months was factually incorrect. The Bench noted that during the 90-day period, the investigating agency recorded statements of 65 witnesses.
The Supreme Court criticised the High Court for failing to consider key procedural developments. It noted that the accused did not challenge the orders extending the investigation timeline, nor did they promptly approach the High Court after their bail applications were rejected. Instead, they filed the appeal in September 2024.
The Bench said:
“It is not in dispute that long before the appeal came to be filed, investigation was completed and the charge sheet had been filed.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Dismisses Bloomberg’s Appeal to Retain Story Targeting Zee
It then concluded:
“Thus, we are of the opinion that by the time the accused respondents approached the high court, they had lost the right to seek default bail by their acquiescence. Consequently, the impugned order does not stand to scrutiny and is hereby set aside”.
The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. It added that if they failed to do so, the trial court should take “stringent measures” to secure their custody.
The court further stated:
“The accused respondents shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail which shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove.”
According to the record, an FIR was registered in February 2024 for offences including provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967. The two accused were arrested on February 9, 2024.
The time limit for completing the investigation was extended, and a chargesheet was filed on July 7, 2024 within the extended period that was due to end on July 11, 2024.
In September 2024, the accused appealed to the High Court, challenging the trial court orders that rejected their default bail request and extended the investigation timeline.
The High Court had allowed their appeal, observing:
“The manner in which the investigation proceeded clearly reveals the carelessness on the part of the investigating officer as to how slow the investigation proceeded with, that too in such a situation where the appellants were languishing in judicial custody”.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE