2024 Haldwani violence: As Supreme Court cancels default bail of 2, a look at other accused and bail orders
89 people had been picked up in the wake of violence over a demolition drive that left 5 dead. In successive bail orders, HC has noted delay, or pointed to lack of evidence
Clashes erupted during a government demolition drive in Haldwani in Uttarakhand in 2024 (Photo: Reuters). More than two years after the demolition of a mosque and a madrasa in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, led to violence and the death of five people in clashes with police, two of the accused may be sent back to jail.
In sweeping arrests following the violence in February 2024, the authorities had picked up 89 people, including women. In August 2024, 50 of them were granted default bail by the Uttarakhand High Court, regretting the “sluggish” pace of the investigation and noting that the chargesheet had not been filed within the 90-day time limit.
In other instances, the court questioned the State’s inability to establish evidence of conspiracy.
Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub, charged under the UAPA among other Sections, had got default bail, in January 2025, on the same grounds as the other accused. Accused of attempted murder, rioting, dacoity, criminal conspiracy, possession of firearms, and committing a terrorist act, the two contended before the High Court that the investigation into the case was incomplete, and chargesheets had not been filed within the 90-day period.
Giving them bail, the High Court said, “The right to life and liberty is one of the integral parts of the Constitution of India and it is the most sacred Fundamental Right. The custody of people in the name of various enactments and without adhering to the promptness of the investigation… cannot allow the appellants to remain under incarceration.”
On Wednesday, however, the Supreme Court set aside the default bail of Siddiqui and Ayub, and told them to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.
Following the Supreme Court order, the Uttarakhand Police claimed it had achieved “a significant breakthrough” in the cases. “During the incident, rioters launched life-threatening attacks on police personnel, administrative officials and municipal corporation employees. They also set fire to the police station, government vehicles and other public property, and carried out extensive vandalism,” police said.
D S Patni, who represented Siddiqui and Ayub in the High Court, said they would move for regular bail as well as “a 482 petition” against the three FIRs against Siddiqui and Ayub. A petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is filed to quash criminal proceedings.
“The High Court has granted regular bail to the other accused in the case, citing the lack of evidence for police claims,” Patni said.
Following the February 8, 2024, violence in Haldwani, three FIRs had been registered, with many of the accused charged under the UAPA. The alleged main “conspirators”, Abdul Malik and his son Moied, are out on bail.
Malik’s advocate Sanpreet Singh Ajmani – who also represents Moied and another accused, Raeez – told The Indian Express that Malik, who had been behind bars since February 2024, got bail “on merits” in April 2026, and not default bail like the others.
While the prosecution alleges that Malik and Moied were the “main conspirators” and a meeting was conducted at Malik’s house on January 31, 2024, a week before the Haldwani violence, Ajmani contended before the High Court that Malik was not even in Uttarakhand on February 8, 2024. “He was in Noida and Delhi. There is no direct evidence regarding the alleged conspiracy. The entire allegations against the appellant do not inspire confidence, and the possibility of false implication cannot be completely ruled out…” the advocate told the court.
Ajmani also argued that chargesheets had already been filed in the three FIRs. The court ruled in favour of bail for Malik, if he was not wanted in any other criminal case.
In Moied’s case, Ajmani pointed out that no specific role had been assigned to him regarding the crime. It was also argued that Moied was in Dehradun only to meet a friend at the Secretariat on the day of the incident, and was not initially named in two of the three FIRs against him.
In its order granting bail to Moied in November 2025, the High Court said: “… there is no direct evidence even of conspiracy against the applicant. The prosecution could not tell us as to who has named or identified the applicant. It is also in the mind of this Court (that) the applicant has already spent more than one year and eight months in custody in connection with the alleged FIR.”
In another case, against Abdul Rehman – who was accused of arson, rioting, and hurling petrol bombs at police, and was in custody since February 20, 2024 – the prosecution argued that criminal activities carried out by him fell within the definition of “terroristic attack” as these were meant to create terror.
Granting him bail, the High Court said Rehman had spent two years in jail, and that there was no direct evidence even of conspiracy against the applicant. “The prosecution could not tell us as to who has named or identified the applicant,” the High Court said on March 20, 2026.
Share
