MOHD. ZAHEER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 19/9/2024, passed by learned 1st 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, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 395, 427, 436, 333 412, 120-B IPC, r/w Sec. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, r/w Ss. 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Ss. 15/16 of the UAPA, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected the bail application no.297 of 2024 filed by the appellant.

(2.) Facts of the case giving rise to the present proceedings are that an FIR No.21 of 2024 dtd. 8/2/2024 was lodged in Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital. As per the aforesaid FIR, on 8/2/2024 officials from Nagar Nigam, Tehsil and Police went to a place in Banbhoolpura locality to demolish two structures allegedly encroachments on public land one Madarsa and one Mosque, which was already sealed and fenced. When officials reached the spot they faced resistance from the local public, who formed a mob and started pelting stones at the officials and petrol bombs were also thrown in the process. During this process Police officials also rushed to the Police Station Banbhoolpura after receiving of reports that some persons attempted to set the police station on fire; petrol bombs were thrown on the Police vehicle and the service pistols and cartridges of Police officials S.O. Mukhani were also snatched.

(3.) It is admitted that the provisions of Sec. 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were invoked subsequently during investigation against the appellant/applicant and other persons who have been arrested during investigation. The name of the appellant/applicant was not mentioned in the FIR. He was arrested on 23/2/2023, on asking of Riyazul Hasan-independent witness, categorically stated that the appellant was present in meeting on 30/1/2023 which was held at the house of main accused-Abdul Malik, along with other co-accused persons and the appellant has actively involved in committing all the misdeed along with the main accused-Abdul Malik.