Supreme Court Slams High Court Over 'Grave Errors' in Haldwani Riots Bail Grant

In a sharp rebuke to the Uttarakhand High Court, the Supreme Court of India has cancelled default bail granted to two men accused in the explosive 2024 Haldwani riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the High Court's January 8, 2025 order, directing accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub to surrender within two weeks. The top court faulted the High Court for factual inaccuracies and ignoring the accused's prolonged silence on trial court extensions.

The ruling, cited as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 463 , underscores the limits of default bail rights when investigations proceed diligently amid complex riot probes.

Flames of Haldwani: The Riots That Ignited the Case

February 8, 2024: Tensions erupt in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, leading to FIR No. 21/2024 at Banbhoolpura police station. Accusations fly of widespread arson, rioting, and massive public property damage—including torching the police station itself. Petrol bombs and other weapons allegedly fueled the chaos, invoking serious charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 427, 436, and 120-B IPC , alongside provisions from the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932; Arms Act, 1959; and Sections 15 and 16 UAPA .

Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub were arrested on February 9. With UAPA in play, the 90-day investigation window under Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 43D(2) UAPA became the battleground.

Probe Under Fire: Extensions, Rejections, and a Delayed Challenge

The timeline was tight but methodical: - May 10, 2024 : Trial court grants first 28-day extension under Section 43D(2), after hearing counsel for the accused. - June 3, 2024 : Accused's default bail plea rejected. - June 6 and July 1, 2024 : Further extensions approved. - July 7, 2024 : Chargesheet filed, just before the final deadline of July 11.

The accused waited until September 2024 to appeal the trial court's orders to the High Court—long after the chargesheet.

High Court Lambasts 'Sluggish' Probe, State Fights Back

The Uttarakhand High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 495/2024, granted default bail, decrying "carelessness" by the investigating officer. It highlighted a "slow" probe: only "8 official witnesses and four public witnesses" in 90 days, calling it the "height of sluggish investigation."

The State of Uttarakhand appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court ignored 65 witness statements recorded in that period and the riots' scale—multiple FIRs, hordes of accused, and riot complexity.

Respondents' counsel, led by senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal, defended the High Court's view, but the apex court wasn't convinced.

Apex Court Draws the Line: Factual Flaws and Fatal Delay

The Supreme Court dismantled the High Court's reasoning on multiple fronts. First, factual error : "The observation that only 8 official witnesses and 4 public witnesses had been examined in three months is factually incorrect... in the said period of 90 days, the statements of 65 witnesses had been recorded."

Second, context mattered : "It was absolutely unreasonable... to have observed that the investigating agency had not proceeded with investigation at a reasonable pace... considering the magnitude of the crime and the large number of accused and witnesses."

Crucially, acquiescence sealed it : The accused "never challenged the orders of extension... and instead waited till September, 2024 before filing the appeal... long before the appeal came to be filed, investigation was completed and chargesheet had been filed. Thus, they had lost the right to seek default bail by their acquiescence."

No precedents were directly cited, but the ruling reinforces strict timelines under UAPA while stressing timely challenges to extensions.

Key Observations

"The High Court committed grave error in facts as well as in law in extending the benefit of default bail to the respondents."

"The investigation was proceeding with utmost expediency in a case which would have presented grave challenges to the investigation agency."

"By the time the accused respondents approached the High Court, they had lost the right to seek default bail by their acquiescence."

Surrender or Face the Music: Implications for UAPA Cases

The appeal stands allowed; the High Court order is set aside. The accused must surrender within two weeks, or face coercive action. They can seek regular bail afresh, uninfluenced by this judgment.

This decision signals to lower courts: Scrutinize default bail claims rigorously, especially in mega-probes like riots, and penalize delayed challenges. For UAPA litigation, it affirms that extensions, once granted without protest, can't be undone post-chargesheet.

As Uttarakhand's DAG Jatinder Kumar Sethi secured the win, the ruling arrives amid ongoing Haldwani sensitivities, reminding that justice timelines bend—but don't break—for complexity.