Uttarakhand High Court ruling highlights police bias, poor investigation, and the struggle for justice faced by Muslims
NEW DELHI – The Uttarakhand High Court has granted bail to a young Muslim man, Muhammad Tasleem, who had been kept in jail for 18 months in connection with the Haldwani riot case despite no credible evidence being produced against him.
A division bench comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Jashar Purohit passed the order on Saturday after hearing detailed arguments presented by Tasleem’s lawyers, CK Sharma and Mujahid Ahmed. The defence highlighted how Tasleem had been jailed without justification, with the prosecution failing to establish his involvement in the alleged violence.
During the hearing, advocates CK Sharma and Mujahid Ahmed argued that Tasleem was being unfairly targeted. They told the court that the chargesheet filed by the prosecution lacked any concrete proof.
“The only allegation against my client is that he was present in the crowd,” said advocate Mujahid Ahmed. “But mere presence cannot establish participation in violence. There is no CCTV footage, no weapon recovery, and no independent witness against him.”
They also stressed that Tasleem comes from a poor family and had never been involved in any unlawful activity before. “This case reflects how innocent Muslims are being harassed,” CK Sharma added.
On the other hand, government lawyer BN Mulkhi opposed the bail plea, insisting there was evidence against Tasleem. He pointed to a journalist’s statement alleging Tasleem’s involvement. However, the high court rejected this as weak and insufficient.
The bench expressed concern over the poor quality of the police investigation. “It is surprising that the arrest is based only on a journalist’s statement. The police could not find even one credible witness to support their case,” observed Justice Tiwari.
In its ruling, the court said, “The accused has been in jail for the last 18 months, yet no solid evidence has been presented. The CCTV footage does not show his presence.” The judges further remarked that the police investigation reflected negligence and bias.
This order not only paved the way for Tasleem’s release but also raised questions about the manner in which Muslim youth are being targeted and kept behind bars without due process.
Tasleem’s bail was made possible through the legal efforts of the Haldwani Jamiat Ulema, which acted under the guidance of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani.
Maulana Madani welcomed the verdict, saying, “This is not just Tasleem’s victory but the victory of truth. Time and again, Muslim youth are being jailed without evidence. We will continue to fight for justice for each one of them.”
The Jamiat Ulema’s Legal Aid Committee has so far succeeded in securing bail for 173 Muslims, including five women, who were arrested in similar cases following the riots.
Local residents in Haldwani reacted strongly to the court’s order. Many described Tasleem’s release as a small step towards justice but said accountability must be fixed on police officers who carried out baseless arrests.
A resident, Abdul Rahman, told Clarion India: “Our boys are being picked up only because they are Muslims. The court has seen the truth, but who will return the 18 months Tasleem lost?”
Another community elder, Shafiq Ahmed, said, “The authorities must stop targeting us. Every time there is a disturbance, Muslims are the first to be blamed, even without evidence.”
The Haldwani riot case has once again brought forward the concerns of Muslims over biased policing and communal prejudice. While Tasleem has finally walked free, his ordeal underlines the struggles faced by many innocent Muslims languishing in jails without trial.
The case also serves as a reminder that legal support from organisations like Jamiat Ulema is crucial in defending the rights of minorities who otherwise stand little chance against systemic bias.
As one lawyer involved in the case remarked, “This is not just about Tasleem. It is about restoring faith in justice for hundreds of Muslims who have been wrongfully accused.”
