Haldwani Violence | 'Sluggish' Probe; 'Careless' IO: Uttarakhand High Court Grants Default Bail To 50 Accused

A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit granted default bail to the accused persons on the grounds that the police failed to file a chargesheet within 90 days of the incident.

The Court noted that the accused-appellants had been in judicial custody since their arrest (February 13 and February 16), and despite the expiry of 90 days, no substantial progress had been made in the investigation, and despite this, the Lower Court (vide its order dated May 11, 2024), extended the period of investigation and appellants' detention beyond 90 days [in light of Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA],

“The manner in which 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 Court said in its order.

Finding faults with the lower court's order giving an extension to the probe agency and also extending the appellants' detention beyond 90 days, the division bench stressed that for a 'sluggish' investigation, as was the case in the present matter, the appellants cannot be made to suffer.

Here it may be noted that as per Section 167 CrPC, if the investigation of a case as given in the provision of Section 167(2)(a)(i) is not completed within 90 days, the accused persons shall be entitled to get default bail under the said provisions of CrPC.

In the instant case, the 90-day period was going to expire on May 12 and May 13; however, just before the expiry of the said period, on May 9, 2024, the police added the offence under Section 15/16 of the UAPA in respect of the appellants.

By virtue of adding the provisions of the UAPA, the provisions of Section 43D were invoked, which gave the prosecution the right to get the period of detention extended to a maximum of 180 days under the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b).

Here it may be noted that as per Section 43 D(2)(b) UAPA, the extension for investigation could be granted up to a maximum period of 180 days for the following reasons:

• Completion of the investigation;

• Progress in the investigation was explained, and

• Specific reasons for detention beyond a period of 90 days

“We found that though the ingredients may be available for the invocation of provision of Section 43D(2)(b), but in order to appreciate the said provision in true sense, in depth look is required to find out as to how the investigation proceeded within a period of 90 days”, the Court said.

To conclude that the probe was 'sluggish', the Court considered that the arms recovered on February 13, 2024, were sent to the FSL only on April 1, 2024 (after a delay of 45 days). Further, the articles seized on April 16, 2024, were sent only on May 18, 2024 (after a period of 90 days was over).

“It cannot be the intention of the law that the Investigating Officer kept silent and did not proceed with the investigation with promptitude and it is only on the expiry of period of 90 days he suddenly awakes from his slumber to move an application that further time is needed to complete the investigation,” the Court remarked.

Against this backdrop, the Court stressed that the right to life and liberty is a fundamental part of the Indian Constitution, and people cannot be held in custody under various enactments without a prompt investigation, as such laws do not justify the prolonged incarceration of the appellant.

The violence in Haldwani's Banbhoolpura area took place soon after a madrasa and mosque were demolished as part of the local authority's anti-encroachment drive. It resulted in 5 deaths, and around 100 people got injured during the violence.

Appearances

For Appellants: Nitya Ramakrishnan, Senior Advocate assisted by C.K. Sharma, Nitin Tewari, Vijay Kumar Pandey, Manish Kumar Pandey, Shahid Nadeem, Mujahid Ahmad, Stuti Rai and Ram Yadav

For state: Deputy Advocate General J.S. Virk, with Brief Holder R.K. Joshi