Prolonged pre-trial detention and lack of direct evidence justify bail despite gravity of UAPA charges.

The appellant challenged the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (U.A.P. Act), Haldwani, which rejected his bail application in connection with FIR No. 21 of 2024.

The case arose from an incident on 08.02.2024 at Malik-ka-Bagicha, Haldwani, where a mob allegedly committed arson, rioting, and attempted murder during an administration-led demolition of illegal constructions.

It was alleged that the rioters used petrol bombs and illegal firearms, resulting in injuries to police personnel and the theft of service weapons.

The appellant was arrested on 19.02.2024 after being identified via CCTV footage and witness statements.

The prosecution subsequently invoked Sections 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, against the appellant and others.

The court’s decision was governed by the bail provisions applicable to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the stringent requirements under Sections 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The court relied on the fundamental principle that the absence of direct, corroborative evidence and an extended period of pre-trial detention (approximately two years) are significant factors in favoring the grant of bail.

The Court scrutinized the prosecution's evidence, noting that the appellant was not named in the initial FIR but was implicated during the investigation based on CCTV footage.

While the State contended that the appellant's actions constituted a "terrorist attack" aimed at creating fear, the Court found that the specific role assigned to the appellant was general, involving only "pushing and shoving" within a crowd.

The Court highlighted a critical evidentiary gap: the prosecution could not identify who exactly recognized the appellant from the CCTV footage.

Finding no direct evidence to link the appellant to specific acts of arson or attempted murder, the Court determined that the evidence was insufficient to justify further detention, especially since the appellant had no prior criminal record and had already spent two years in custody.

The Court held that the appellant was entitled to regular bail due to the lack of direct evidence and the duration of his custody.

The appellant was directed to be released upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, provided he is not required in any other matter.