Supreme Court Cancels Default Bail in 2024 Haldwani Rioting Case, Orders Accused to Surrender

May 6, 2026 : The Supreme Court has set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s order granting default bail to two accused in the 2024 Haldwani arson and rioting case, holding that the High Court made “grave errors” in both facts and law while criticizing the pace of the investigation.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by the Uttarakhand government and directed accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. The Court also clarified that the accused remain free to seek regular bail, which must be considered independently on its own merits.

The case arose out of the February 2024 violence in Haldwani, where widespread rioting, arson, and attacks on public property, including a police station, were reported. According to the prosecution, the accused were among several persons allegedly involved in the violence, which included the use of petrol bombs and other weapons. Multiple FIRs were also registered in nearby areas in connection with similar incidents.

The accused had been booked under several serious provisions of the IPC, the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Sections 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. They were arrested on February 9, 2024. Before the expiry of the standard 90-day investigation period, the investigating agency sought extension of time under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA, which was granted by the trial court.

Despite these extensions, the accused later sought default bail, arguing that the investigation had not been completed within the statutory period. Their plea was rejected by the trial court, but the Uttarakhand High Court granted them default bail in January 2025, observing that the police investigation had proceeded slowly and describing the conduct of the investigating officer as “careless” and “sluggish.”

The Supreme Court, however, sharply disagreed with that assessment. The bench observed that the High Court had incorrectly recorded that only 12 witness statements had been collected during the first three months of investigation. In reality, the investigating agency had recorded statements of 65 witnesses during that period.

The apex court said the investigation was being conducted with “utmost expediency” considering the scale of the violence, the number of accused persons involved, and the complexity of the case. The Court further noted that the High Court was unjustified in casting aspersions on the investigating officer in such circumstances.

The Supreme Court also held that the accused had effectively lost their right to seek default bail because they did not promptly challenge the trial court’s extension orders. By the time they approached the High Court in September 2024, the charge sheet had already been filed on July 7, 2024, within the extended period allowed for investigation. The bench ruled that the respondents had “acquiesced” by delaying their challenge and therefore could no longer claim the statutory right to default bail.

Appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, Deputy Advocate General Jatinder Kumar Sethi argued that the investigation had progressed rapidly given the magnitude of the incident. Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal represented the respondents.

The matter was titled State of Uttarakhand v. Javed Siddiqui and Ors., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 908 of 2026.