Prolonged Incarceration and Lack of Direct Evidence Warrant Bail in UAPA Offences

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration.

The court held

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order dated November 10, 2025, passed by the Special Judge (U.A.P. Act).

It also directed

The Court held that the appellant is entitled to be released on regular bail.

It directed the appellant’s immediate release upon the execution of a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, provided he is not required in any other matter.

01Facts

The case arises from FIR No. 21 of 2024 involving large-scale rioting, arson, and violence at Malik-ka-Bagicha, Haldwani, on February 8, 2024, during an administrative demolition drive.

pp. 1-2

Rioters allegedly used petrol bombs, fired illegal weapons, and snatched police equipment.

p. 2

The appellant was arrested on February 11, 2024, after his name surfaced during the investigation through CCTV footage.

p. 2

He was charged under multiple sections of the IPC, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

p. 1

The appellant moved the High Court after the Special Judge (U.A.P. Act), Haldwani, rejected his second bail application on November 10, 2025.

pp. 1-2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under the facts and circumstances of the case, specifically considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration.

pp. 3-4

03Law Applied

The Court considered the penal provisions of Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 395, 427, 436, 333, 412, and 120B of the IPC; Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932; Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; and Sections 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

p. 1

The Court applied the principle that the absence of direct evidence and a prolonged period of pre-trial detention (two years) are significant factors in exercising judicial discretion for granting bail.

pp. 4-5

Provisions in the judgment · 18 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 14 provisions

Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 307 Section 323 Section 332 Section 341 Section 342 Section 353 Section 395 Section 427 Section 436 Section 333 Section 412

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 15 Section 16

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Section 3 Section 4

04Reasoning

The Court examined the prosecution's evidence, including statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and CCTV footage.

pp. 3-4

While the State argued the appellant was part of a planned conspiracy and spotted inciting a crowd, the Court noted that the role assigned to the appellant was "general in nature," limited to "pushing and shoving" within a crowd.

p. 4

The Bench observed that there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to specific acts of violence and highlighted that the prosecution failed to clarify who had actually identified the appellant from the CCTV footage.

p. 4

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the appellant had no prior criminal antecedents and had already spent two years in custody.

p. 4

Balancing the severity of the charges against the nature of the involvement and the length of detention, the Court found the appellant eligible for bail.

pp. 4-5