The Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court that granted default bail to two individuals accused in the 2024 Haldwani arson and rioting case. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while allowing the appeal filed by the Uttarakhand government, directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.
The top court observed that the High Court had “completely gone wrong” in criticizing the investigating agency’s conduct and pace. The bench emphasized that the magnitude of the crime—which involved widespread rioting and an attack on a police station—presented significant challenges that justified the timeline of the probe.
The case stems from an incident in February 2024 in Haldwani, where a large-scale riot broke out, resulting in arson and damage to public property, including a local police station. The accused, Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub, were arrested on February 9, 2024, and faced charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused is entitled to “default bail” if the investigating agency fails to file a chargesheet within a prescribed period (typically 60 or 90 days, or extended periods for special acts like UAPA). In this instance, the trial court had granted an extension for the probe. The chargesheet was eventually filed on July 7, 2024, just before the extended deadline expired on July 11, 2024.
In January 2025, the Uttarakhand High Court granted default bail to the duo, accusing the investigating officer of “carelessness” and “lethargy.” The High Court had remarked that the investigation proceeded at a slow pace while the appellants “languished in judicial custody,” noting that only eight official and four public witnesses had been examined within three months.
The Supreme Court, however, found the High Court’s observations to be “absolutely unreasonable” and factually incorrect. Deputy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi, appearing for the State, pointed out that the statements of 65 witnesses—not 12—had been recorded during the 90-day period.
The bench noted that the investigation was “proceeding with utmost expediency” given the “magnitude of the crime and the large number of accused and witnesses.” The court highlighted the gravity of the allegations, which included the use of petrol bombs and the destruction of a police building.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out a critical procedural lapse by the accused. The bench noted that they had not challenged the extension of time or the initial rejection of bail promptly. Instead, they waited until September 2024—months after the chargesheet had already been filed in July—to approach the High Court.
“It is not in dispute that long before the appeal came to be filed, investigation was completed and the charge sheet had been filed,” the bench observed. “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.”
Concluding that the High Court’s order did not stand to scrutiny, the Supreme Court set it aside. The accused have been granted two weeks to surrender, failing which the trial court is authorized to take “stringent measures” to take them into custody.
The bench clarified that the accused remain at liberty to apply for regular bail, which will be considered on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this specific ruling regarding default bail.
