The bench listed the matter on January 5, 2026 and allowed the state to file a counter affidavit in the matter within two weeks.
Case
The accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in Nainital on April 12 following which an FIR was registered against him under sections 65(1) (rape of a woman under sixteen years old), 351 (1) (criminal intimidation) of BNS and section 3 /4 (Penetrative sexual assault on a child) POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(b) (i), 3(v) (ii) SC-ST Act.
He has been accused of luring the survivor by offering her Rs 200 while she was going to her home from the market in the hill station and raping her at knifepoint.
Days after the alleged crime, on April 20, the girl narrated the incident to her family, following which the accused was booked.
Story continues below this ad
On May 1, in the morning hours, a number of pressure groups in the town started shouting communal slogans, threatened to demolish the house of the accused and also tried to burn down his house.
On the same day, the executive officer of the local municipal body, Nagar Palika Parishad posted a notice on the house of the accused alleging encroachment on Nagar Palika/government land/forest land to be replied within three-days by him.
The move was challenged by the wife of the accused before the high court and officials from the municipal body admitted before the court that the process of issuing notice was not in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court regarding demolition of illegal structures. The notice was withdrawn.
On May 7, District Level Development Authority (DLDA) pasted a notice on the accused’s house in an ex-parte manner for demolition.
Story continues below this ad
As soon as the accused’s wife came to know regarding the notice, she sent a reply through a registered post to the DDLA and also informed that her husband is in jail and it is not possible for him to appear before the authorities concerned.
Undeterred, the DDLA proceeded in an ex-parte manner in the demolition proceedings of the accused’s house. His wife sent an advocate to the DDLA officials stating that her objections were sent through registered post, may be considered.
A special POCSO court in Haldwani of Nainital district, on May 20 denied bail to Usman noting that the victim has supported the prosecution’s case in her statements and the accused, who is alleged to have committed a serious offence, may tamper with evidence if released on bail.
On July 17, the DDLA moved ahead with the proceedings of demolition notice and without hearing the accused passed an order of demolition following which an appeal was filed before the commissioner of the Kumaon division of the state who is also the chairman of the regulatory body.
Story continues below this ad
The appeal was dismissed without hearing the accused in an ex-parte manner.
Following this, on November 12, the DDLA again issued a demolition notice for Usman’s house.
Meanwhile, Begum filed a revision plea against the dismissal of the appeal by the commissioner of Kumaon division before the chief administrator, Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority, Dehradun which was registered online on November 20 and is under consideration.
This information was passed on to the DDLA on November 28.
Story continues below this ad
On December 9, secretary of the DDLA personally visited Usman’s house and warned his family members orally to vacate the house within three days or they will come with force for demolition.
The wife of the accused approached the high court urging relief.
Grounds in plea
The wife of the accused, in her petition alleged that the DDLA is acting with vengeance and malice under “pressure of various groups” as no notice was ever issued to her husband before the case was registered against him.
It is only after the lodging of the FIR that the DDLA issued the demolition notice on the behest of the “pressure groups” which indulged in the communal violence with “vengeance and malice”.
Story continues below this ad
Such violent “hatred and belligerence” being shown against the accused’s family on the basis of religion is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The house in question is not on Nagar Palika/ government land/ forest land and there is no encroachment done by the petitioner or her husband.
The petition said that the DDLA secretary is not only violating the directions of the Supreme Court but also selectively targeting the house due to “malice and ill will” and being guided by the pressure groups in the town.
The area in which the petitioner’s house is situated, has more than 130 houses and no demolition action has been taken even against the neighbours who reside on the same land and in the same manner.
Story continues below this ad
She said that her house is being targeted due to a hate campaign against her husband, who has been alleged as an accused in a false criminal case.
Expressing her apprehensions, the petitioner said that on the basis of consistent communal threats and violence being done against her family, the authorities might forcefully demolish the house even without waiting for due consideration of the revision petition filed by her before the Uttarakhand Housing and Urban Development Authority.
Advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta, who represented the petitioner in the high court, told The Indian Express, “We have pleaded that Supreme Court directions have not been followed by the respondents.”
