SC cancels default bail in Banphoolpura violence case under UAPA

Dehradun: The Supreme Court has set aside Uttarakhand high court order that granted default bail to Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Dehradun: The Supreme Court has overturned Uttarakhand high court’s order granting default bail to Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub in the Banphoolpura violence case, calling the HC’s decision a “grave error in facts as well as in law.”A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on May 4 ruled that the respondents were not entitled to default bail as the investigation was validly extended under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the chargesheet was filed within the extended period, and that the accused approached the HC only after the investigation concluded.The case arose from an FIR registered on Feb 8, 2024, at Banphoolpura police station, Haldwani, in connection with an incident involving arson, rioting and extensive damage to public property, including the police station building.The respondents were arrested on Feb 9, 2024, and were booked under multiple provisions of the IPC, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Criminal Law Amendment Act, Arms Act and sections 15 and 16 of UAPA. The SC recorded that before expiry of the initial 90-day period from arrest, the investigating agency moved an application on May 10, 2024, under section 43D(2)(ii)(b) of UAPA seeking more time to complete the investigation and continue detention for another 28 days.Notice was served on the accused, their counsel were heard and the trial court passed a detailed order extending the time to complete the probe. A default bail plea filed by the accused on June 3, 2024, was rejected by the trial court. The investigation period was then extended again on June 6 and July 1, and the chargesheet was finally filed on July 7, 2024, within the extended deadline ending July 11.HC granted default bail in Jan 2025, criticising the pace of investigation and observing that only eight official witnesses and four public witnesses were examined in three months. The SC rejected that reasoning, calling the HC’s assessment factually incorrect. It noted the state’s submission that statements of 65 witnesses were recorded within the 90-day period. Given the scale of the alleged crime, the number of accused, the allegation of use of petrol bombs and other weapons, and the existence of similar incidents in nearby areas leading to separate FIRs, the SC held that the investigation was proceeding with “utmost expediency.”The apex court emphasised that the respondents did not promptly challenge the extension orders or the rejection of default bail and instead waited until Sept 2024 to approach the HC, by which time the investigation was completed and the chargesheet filed.The SC held that the respondents lost the right to default bail by delaying their challenge until after the chargesheet was filed. They were directed to surrender within two weeks, though free to seek regular bail on merits.