Absence of direct evidence and prolonged incarceration warrant bail despite identification through CCTV footage.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (U.A.P. Act), Haldwani, which rejected his bail application.

The case arose from FIR No. 23 of 2024, involving a violent incident on 08.02.2024 at Malik-ka-Bagicha, Haldwani.

During a demolition drive by the administration, a mob engaged in rioting, arson, and stone-pelting, and attacked police personnel with petrol bombs and firearms.

The appellant was arrested on 11.02.2024 after his name surfaced during the investigation, primarily through identification in CCTV footage.

The State contended that the appellant was part of a well-planned conspiracy to create terror and damage national property.

The appellant, a daily wager with no criminal antecedents, argued he was falsely implicated and that his presence in the area was incidental as a local resident.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to be released on regular bail given the nature of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration

Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435, 436, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding rioting, attempted murder, and criminal conspiracy

Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984

Sections 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, which relate to terrorist acts

The court's decision hinged on the evidentiary standard for bail and the principle of personal liberty in the context of prolonged pre-trial detention

The Court observed that while the State alleged the appellant's involvement based on CCTV footage and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, there was a significant lack of direct evidence linking him to specific violent acts.

The prosecution failed to demonstrate who exactly had identified the appellant from the footage.

The Court noted that the role assigned to the appellant was general—inciting people and "pushing and shoving" within a crowd—rather than specific acts of arson or assault.

Most importantly, the Court balanced the gravity of the UAPA charges against the fact that the appellant had already spent two years in custody.

Under these circumstances, the Court found that the continued detention of the appellant was not justified, especially since no concrete evidence was presented to "nail" his specific involvement beyond his mere presence in his residential area.

The Court held that the appellant was entitled to regular bail due to the lack of direct evidence and his two-year period of incarceration.

The appellant was directed to be released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.