BHOLA @ SOHAIL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since a common question of law is raised in these appeals, hence, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of CRLA No.678 of 2024 are taken up for consideration.

(2.) Office report suggests that these appeals have been time barred, wherefor, the applications seeking condonation of delay (IA Nos.1 of 2024) has been filed in each case. On being satisfied with the reasons, so furnished, we allow the applications (IA Nos.1 of 2024) and condone the delay. The objections filed by the State stand disposed of accordingly.

(3.) CRLA No.678 of 2024 is filed by the appellants under Sec. 21(4) of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the orders dtd. 10/5/2024, 6/6/2024 and 1/7/2024, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in FIR No.21 of 2024, registered at Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, 436, 120-B IPC r/w Ss. 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, r/w Sec. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, r/w Ss. 3/25, 4/25, 7/25 of The Arms Act, r/w Ss. 15 & 16 of the UAPA, whereby, the learned trial court has extended the time period of investigation and detention beyond 90 days and order dtd. 1/7/2024, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellants for release on default bail.