Prolonged pre-trial incarceration and lack of direct evidence warrant grant of bail in UAPA offenses.

On February 8, 2024, a team of administration and police officials attempted to demolish illegal constructions at Malik-ka-Bagicha in Haldwani.

This resulted in large-scale rioting, arson, and violence, where petrol bombs were used and police weapons were snatched.

FIR No. 23 of 2024 was registered against unknown persons at Police Station Banbhoolpura.

The appellant was arrested on February 19, 2024, after allegedly being identified through CCTV footage.

During the investigation, Sections 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, were added to the charges.

The appellant’s bail application was rejected by the Special Judge (U.A.P. Act), Haldwani, on October 30, 2025.

The appellant challenged this rejection through the present criminal appeal.

Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 435, 436, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; and Sections 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding the necessity of direct evidence for continued detention and the relevance of the duration of incarceration in bail matters.

The prosecution contended that the appellant was part of a "terrorist attack" aimed at creating public terror and causing irreparable damage to national property.

the specific role assigned to the appellant was general in nature, described as "pushing and shoving" within a crowd.

Upon reviewing the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the CCTV evidence, the Court found a significant evidentiary gap; the prosecution could not clarify who had identified the appellant from the footage.

The Court balanced the gravity of the charges against the facts that the appellant is a daily wager with no criminal antecedents and had already spent two years in custody.

Consequently, the Court determined that the lack of direct evidence and the period of detention justified the grant of bail.

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

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

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.