The Supreme Court has set aside a decision by the Uttarakhand High Court granting default bail to two individuals accused in connection with the 2024 Haldwani riots, calling the earlier ruling a “grave error” in both fact and law. The apex court’s intervention comes amid scrutiny of the legal interpretation of procedural timelines under stringent laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The case stems from large-scale violence that erupted during a government-led demolition drive in Haldwani, which resulted in arson, damage to public property, and attacks on law enforcement infrastructure.

In its order dated May 4, a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the accused, Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub, to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. The court further instructed that failure to comply should prompt the trial court to initiate stringent measures to secure their custody. The ruling effectively overturns the High Court’s January 8, 2025 decision, which had granted default bail based on the argument that the investigation had not been completed within the legally prescribed time frame.

The High Court had earlier accepted the accused’s contention that the chargesheet was not filed within the statutory 90-day period, thereby entitling them to default bail. It also observed what it described as a “sluggish” pace of investigation by the authorities. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this assessment, emphasizing that procedural extensions granted to investigating agencies must be considered when evaluating compliance with statutory deadlines.

Also Read: Congress To Support Vijay In Tamil Nadu With Conditional Alliance Framework

During the hearing of the state government’s appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the trial court had repeatedly extended the time for completion of the investigation upon requests from the investigating agency. These extensions were granted in accordance with legal provisions, and the trial court had also rejected earlier bail pleas by the accused during this period. The apex court highlighted that such extensions are permissible under law, particularly in cases involving serious offences under special statutes like the UAPA.

Crucially, the Supreme Court pointed out that the chargesheet against the accused was filed on July 7, 2024, which fell within the extended deadline of July 11, 2024. As a result, the court held that the accused had lost their right to claim default bail, which is contingent upon the failure of authorities to file a chargesheet within the stipulated or lawfully extended period. This finding formed the basis for the court’s conclusion that the High Court had erred in granting bail.

The accused had approached the High Court challenging the trial court’s orders that extended the investigation timeline and denied them bail. With the Supreme Court now reversing that decision, the case is expected to proceed further in the trial court. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s approach to balancing individual liberty with procedural compliance in cases involving serious criminal allegations, particularly those linked to public disorder and national security laws.

Also Read: Assam Cop Injured In Anti-Drug Operation Near Manipur Border, Airlifted