Abdul Malik v. State of Uttarakhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA

16TH APRIL, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.162 of 2025

Abdul Malik

....Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

....Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate

with Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate

and Ms. Amitoz Kaur, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General

with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Assistant

Government Advocate.

(Per : Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J.)

Appellant-Abdul Malik is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 395, 427, 435, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Section 3 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 15 read with Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in Case Crime No.22 of 2024, registered at Police Station Banbhoolpura, Haldwani, District Nainital.

2.

On

06.02.2025, learned Special Judge

(U.A.P., Act)/IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital has rejected the bail application of the appellant, filed in Special Sessions Trial No.2 of 2024.

3.

In short, as per the prosecution, on

08.02.2024, the police team was present during the demolition proceedings of the mosque situated in the Malik ka Bagicha. Meanwhile, the police received an information that the rioters are setting the police station on fire. On the said information, the police team left for the police station. The police personnel were attacked with stones and firing by individuals from nearby houses near Karim Hotel. The police vehicles were set on fire and the police personnel were beaten, in which, they (police personnel) sustained injuries and a government revolver along with six cartridges were looted. Before the said incident, a meeting was held at the house of the appellant on the night of 30.01.2024.

4.

Heard Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent.

5.

Mr. Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate, has contended that the appellant was not present in the State of Uttarakhand on the date of the incident. He was in Noida and Delhi. There is no direct evidence

regarding the alleged conspiracy. The entire allegations against the appellant do not inspire confidence and the possibility of false implication cannot be completely ruled out. Appellant has not been convicted by any court in any criminal case. He has been in custody since 23.02.2024. He is a permanent resident of District Nainital, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Co-appellants including the co-appellant Abdul Moied, the son of the appellant, have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

6.

On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent, has opposed the appeal and submitted that the present appellant and his son Abdul Moied were the main conspirators of the incident. However, he has fairly conceded that as per the investigation, the appellant was not present at the spot on 08.02.2024, and, the co-appellant Abdul Moied has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the appellant is

entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

8.

Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal (CRLA No.162 of 2025) is allowed. The order dated

06.02.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (U.A.P., Act)/IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Naintal in Special Sessions Trial No.2 of 2024, is hereby set aside. The appellant-Abdul Malik is directed to be released on bail, if he is not wanted in any other criminal case, on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Appellant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Appellant shall not directly or indirectly make

any inducement, threat or promise to any person,

acquainted with the facts of this case.

(iii) Appellant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

__________________

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

____________

Alok Mahra, J. Date: 16.04.2026 JKJ/Pant