Pankaj Purohit, J.

1. There is a delay of 132 days in filing the instant criminal appeal. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application and in view of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary Nos.18725 and 18860 of 2025 Jiyaurrehman etc. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, preferred by the co-accused not to dismiss the appeals/petitions on the ground of delay and to proceed to decide on merits, notwithstanding the delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 132 days. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2024) made therefor, is allowed.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.05.2024, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in FIR No.21 of 2024, registered at Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 353, 341, 342, 412, 436, 427, 120-B IPC, r/w Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, r/w Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, r/w Sections 3/25, 4/25 & 7/25 of The Arms Act, r/w Sections 15/16 of the UAPA, whereby, the learned trial court has rejected the bail application no.137 of 2024 filed by the appellant.

3. Facts of the case giving rise to the present proceedings are that an FIR No.21 of 2024 dated 08.02.2024 was lodged in Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital. As per the aforesaid FIR, on 08.02.2024 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.

4. It is admitted that the provisions of Section 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 17.02.2024, on the basis of statement of S.O. Neeraj Bhakuni and S.I. Pramod Pathak, who stated that the appellant/applicant was present at the spot instigating and actively involved in committing the crime at the place of incident obstructing Government Work and committing arson and pelting stones.

5. After investigation, Investigation Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused on 07.07.2024. Appellant filed bail application No.137 of 2024 before the learned Trial Court on the ground that at the time of incident, he was seen protesting with police personnel which was ascertained by way of videos and pictures and he was also seen helping the injured police personnel during the violence as per the newspaper reports, thus there was no chance of his being involved in the matters. Learned Trial Court rejected the bail application of the appellant vide impugned order dated 27.05.2024. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid impugned order, appellant/applicant has preferred the present appeal.

6. The objection to the bail application was called from the State. Delay in filing the objection is condoned for the reasons stated in the affidavit. Delay condonation application (IA/3/2025) made therefor, stands disposed of. Objection filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

7. The State in its objection opposed the bail application by stating that the appellant/applicant was involved in the serious offence of rioting, arsoning and violence that too with the officers of the administration and police. It has also been stated that in the statements of Independent Witness Pankaj Saxena (Reporter), Station Officer Neeraj Bhakuni and S.I. Pramod Pathak, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the involvement of appellant/ applicant is proved; the appellant/applicant was present at the spot instigating and actively involved in committing the crime at the place of incident obstructing Government work and committing arson and pelting stones and arson at the rioters' place. The State further contended that the criminal activities done by the appellant/applicant falls within the definition of "terroristic attack" with the purpose of creating terror among the people and the attack caused by the crowd of which the appellant/applicant was part of, caused irreparable damaged to the property of nation and it created fear in the mind of general public. Therefore, offence is made out against the appellant/applicant.

8. It is further submitted by the State that after completion of the investigation, the investigating officer has filed a charge-sheet against the appellant/applicant before the court concerned.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that appellant/applicant was not named in the FIR; he has falsely been implicated with the incident; he has no concern with the alleged violence rioting and arsoning. He further submitted that appellant is associated with Youth Congress and is Assembly President Haldwani and has falsely been implicated only because of his political alignments. He also submitted that appellant is a resident of Banbhoolpura and was passing by where an agitation/ protest was going on and he was trapped in video footage while no overt act has been assigned to appellant. He further submitted that the appellant/applicant is under incarceration since 17.02.2024 and has no criminal history. He is entitled to be released on bail by this Court after setting aside the judgment and order impugned.

11. Per contra, the learned Deputy Advocate General strongly opposed the appeal and the grant of bail to the appellant/applicant. He also relied upon the statements of Independent Witness Pankaj Saxena (Reporter), Station Officer Neeraj Bhakuni, S.I. Pramod Pathak, Constable Parvej Ali, Constable Dilsad Ahmed, S.I. Manoj Kumar Yadav and S.I. Anil Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to nail the appellant/applicant with the alleged crime and offences. He further submitted that though he has not been named in the FIR because the FIR was against unknown persons, but his name was figured during investigation. He also submitted that the appellant/ applicant was previously convicted in a crime wherein he was bailed out.

12. We have perused the record of the case and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Independent Witness Pankaj Saxena (Reporter), Station Officer Neeraj Bhakuni, S.I. Pramod Pathak, Constable Parvej Ali, Constable Dilsad Ahmed, S.I. Manoj Kumar Yadav and S.I. Anil Kumar, there is mention of the name of appellant/applicant who was shown to have instigating and actively involved in committing the crime at the place of incident obstructing Government Work and committing arson and pelting stones.

13. Having considered the submissions of both the learned counsel for parties and having gone through the record of case, this Court is of the view that there is no direct evidence against the appellant/applicant. The prosecution could not tell us as to what active role would be attributed to the appellant/applicant. So far no direct evidence is there against him. It is also in the mind of this Court since the appellant/applicant has already spent almost two years in custody in connection with the aforesaid alleged FIR, he is entitled to be released on bail.

14. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 27.05.2024 impugned in the instant appeal is hereby set-aside. Appellant/applicant-Mokeen Ahmad Saifi is directed to be released immediately on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in FIR No.21 of 2024, if he is not wanted in any other criminal case. The observations made are strictly for deciding this Criminal Appeal and shall not have any bearing on the merit of the trial.

15. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.