New Delhi: Calling the lack of substantive progress in the first 90 days of investigation into the Haldwani violence case “the height of sluggishness”, the Uttarakhand High Court Wednesday granted default bail to as many as fifty accused. In the first month of the probe, the police recorded statements of only three witnesses.
The violence that erupted in February this year in Haldwani’s Banbhoolpura area claimed six lives. Over a hundred, including residents, police and civic personnel, were injured as a bid to demolish an “illegal” structure saw a mob hurl stones and bricks at police and civic personnel, forcing them to run for their lives.
An HC bench of justices Pankaj Purohit and Manoj Kumar Tiwari observed that the investigating officer did not show promptness and only woke from his slumber to seek more time to complete the probe, for which appellants in custody since their arrests in February can’t be made to suffer.
According to Section 167(2) of the CrPC, an accused can be detained for a maximum of 90 days for a crime punishable with death, life imprisonment or a sentence of over 10 years. If the investigation relates to any other offence, the accused can be detained for 60 days.
The Nainital Police had called Abdul Malik, the alleged owner of the demolished structure, the “kingpin” of the violence and had lodged three FIRs naming him, his son and 14 others, apart from unknown persons. Malik and his son were among 80 people arrested in the case.
‘Unexplained’ delay
The HC clubbed a clutch of appeals filed by accused whose bail applications were rejected by the lower court and noted the reservations made by senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan.
The court noted the appellants’ contention that the Nainital Police added offences under sections 15 and 16 (which pertain to acts of terrorism) of UAPA on 9 May, days before the 90-day period for filing the chargesheet was set to expire.
They further argued that the prosecution invoked Section 43D of the UAPA to extend the period of detention to a maximum of 180 days. Under this section, a court may allow this extension if it is satisfied that the investigation cannot be completed within 90 days.
Noting arguments made by lawyers on both sides, the bench observed that the appellants have been in judicial custody since 13 and 16 February, and while the 90-days timeline has expired, there has been no “substantial progress” in the investigation.
“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 judges said in the order.
The judges also observed that only eight official witnesses and four public witnesses recorded their statements in the first three months of the investigation, and only two public witnesses and one official witness recorded their statements in the first month, “the height of sluggishness”.
Chiding the investigators further, the judges observed that firearms recovered on 13 February were sent to a forensic laboratory after 45 days of “inordinate and unexplained” delay on 1 April, while articles seized on 16 April were sent only on 18 May, when the 90-day period was over.
The judges expressed their surprise at the investigating officer saying that prosecution sanction was awaited and that was one of the reasons why extension of custody was required.
The two-judge bench also rejected the argument of the state’s deputy advocate general, who said the public prosecutor moved an application to extend the timeline of investigation beyond 90 days because the process could not have been completed within stipulated time.
The judges opined that there needs to be an “in-depth look” into the status and progress of investigation in the first 90 days before taking call on seeking extension up to 180 days under Section 43D (2)(b) of the UAPA.
“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 order said.
Such an interpretation which deprives a citizen of this country of the valuable right to life and liberty, cannot be made, it added.
The bench also rejected the prosecution’s reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in a case involving Surendra Pundlik Gadling, an alleged member of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), and said that a particular judgment is not reliable in this case because as of now the appellants have not been found to be members of any banned organisation.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also Read: Tale of ‘revenge’ to errand that ended in death — anger, remorse among families of Haldwani victims