Haldwani Violence: Uttarakhand HC Grants Default Bail to 50 Accused, Says 'Extensions Wrong'
The Wire Staff
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
New Delhi: The Uttarakhand high court has given default bail to 50 people arrested after protests by Muslims in Haldwani against the demolition of a madrasa in February this year turned violent.
At least five people were killed and around 60 injured in police firing. This madrasa demolished by the Uttarakhand authority was located in the railway colony area where more than 4,000 families resided, as reported by The Wire. The matter of the Union government wanting the land for railway expansion was being heard by the Supreme Court when the demolition happened.
Local police had registered three first information reports and by June had arrested 84 locals over alleged involvement in the protests. Their detention was extended periodically. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which makes bail very difficult to secure, was slapped on to two of the three FIRs later.
Default bail is granted when an investigation is not completed and a chargesheet is not filed within a stipulated time-period while the accused are in custody. The usual time limit under the CrPC, for serious offences, is 90 days but under UAPA this may be extended up to 180 days provided the prosecution convinces the court of the investigation done until that date, and the specific need for continued detention of the accused.
A trial court had earlier declined the accused default bail – a decision they challenged in the high court, contending that there was no reason shown by the prosecution, or noted by the trial court for continued detention of the accused, much less any specific reason as required by the law.
Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit upheld the plea of the accused today and directed their release on bail upon terms to be imposed by the trial court.
Although the chargesheet in the case was eventually filed on July 6, the 90-day period for the first set of detenues expired on May 12. The high court thus held that extensions granted by the trial court on May 11 and July 1 were "wrong and unsustainable."
The accused were represented by Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan and her team.
This article went live on August twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty four, at fifty-nine minutes past three in the afternoon.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.