Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside an order that had granted default bail to two individuals, Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub, accused of involvement in the 2024 Haldwani arson and rioting case.

The Court ruled in favour of the Uttarakhand government’s appeal, ordering the two accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

A bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, "In our opinion, it was absolutely unreasonable of the High Court to have observed that the investigating agency had not proceeded with investigation at a reasonable pace or that it had acted with lethargy. The observation that only 8 official witnesses and 4 public witnesses had been examined in three months is  factually incorrect as has been pointed out by learned D.A.G. representing the appellant because in the said period of 90 days, the statements of 65 witnesses had been recorded by the investigating agency. Thus, without a doubt, the investigation was proceeding with utmost expediency in a case which would have presented grave challenges to the investigation agency, considering the magnitude of the crime and the large number of accused and witnesses".

DAG Jatinder Kumar Sethi appeared for the State, while Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal appeared for the Respondents.

The two men were accused of participating in a large-scale incident of arson and rioting in Haldwani in February 2024. The state government challenged the High Court's decision, leading the Supreme Court to review whether the accused were legally entitled to be released due to delays in the investigation.

The case originated from a violent incident in February 2024 involving widespread rioting, the use of petrol bombs, and damage to public property, including a police station. The accused were booked under several laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). They were arrested on February 9, 2024, and the investigation period was later extended by the trial court.

The Uttarakhand High Court had previously granted bail in January 2025, criticizing the police for being "lethargic" and failing to complete the probe within the standard 90-day window. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this assessment, calling the High Court's observations "absolutely unreasonable." 

"Having gone through the record, we find that the High Court has completely gone wrong in casting aspersions on the conduct of the Investigating Officer in failing to complete the investigation within a period of 90 days. It may be noted here that the FIR had been filed in relation to an incident of widespread arson, rioting and damage to public property including the building of the police station wherein large number of accused persons were arraigned with the allegation of using petrol bombs and other arsenal in the incident. Few other incidents of the similar nature took place in the nearby areas in relation to which separate FIRs were filed", the Court said.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had made a serious factual error in its earlier ruling. While the High Court had criticized the police for being "lethargic" and recording only 12 statements in three months, the Supreme Court found that the investigating agency had actually recorded the statements of 65 witnesses during that time.

The bench noted that the investigation was proceeding with "utmost expediency" given the massive scale of the crime and the high number of witnesses and accused involved.

In September 2024, the accused preferred an appeal before the high court, assailing the trial court orders rejecting their application seeking default bail and extending the time for completion of the investigation.

The high court has said, "The manner in which the investigation proceeded clearly reveals the carelessness on the part of the investigating officer as to how slow the investigation proceeded with, that too in such a situation where the appellants were languishing in judicial custody".

The Supreme Court further clarified that the accused lost their right to default bail because they did not challenge the extension of the investigation time promptly. By the time they approached the High Court in September 2024, the charge sheet had already been filed on July 7, 2024—well within the extended deadline.

The court emphasized that once a charge sheet is submitted, the right to default bail (due to delay in investigation) usually expires if the accused has "acquiesced" or waited too long to claim it.

"In our opinion, the High Court committed grave error in facts as well as in law in extending the benefit of default bail to the respondents. We shall assign our reasons for holding so", the Court said.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the state's appeal and set aside the order granting bail. The two respondents were directed to surrender to the Trial Court within two weeks. The bench clarified that while the accused could still apply for regular bail, that application would have to be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the current cancellation of their default bail.

Cause Title: State of Uttarakhand v. Javed Siddiqui and Ors. [SLP(Crl.) No(s). 908 of 2026]

Petitioner/State: Deputy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi, Advocate on Record Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate Vikas Negi.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate on Record Rahul Gupta, Advocate Ria Yadav, Advocate Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate Arya Panwar.

Click here to read/download the Order


Tags: