Bench raises ‘serious doubt’ over invocation of UAPA; notes slow progress of trial
NEW DELHI — Expressing serious reservations over the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the 2024 Haldwani violence case, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Uttarakhand government’s plea challenging bail granted to Abdul Malik.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi declined to interfere with the Uttarakhand High Court’s order granting bail to Malik, observing that even if the court’s reasoning was deficient, there was no ground to interfere in a matter concerning personal liberty, Live Law reported.
The case stems from the high court’s order dated April 16, 2026, granting bail to Malik, who is facing charges under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the UAPA, the Arms Act and other penal statutes in connection with the violence that broke out in Banbhoolpura, Haldwani, on February 8, 2024.
The violence followed protests against an anti-encroachment demolition drive. The local administration had said it was demolishing an illegally built madrasa and an adjoining mosque. Protests by locals turned violent, with incidents of stone-pelting, arson and attacks on police personnel and the Banbhoolpura police station. Five persons were killed and over 100 people, including police personnel, were injured in the clashes that followed. Police subsequently made over 80 arrests.
Malik was projected by the police as a key conspirator in the case. His family has denied the charge. The high court, while granting bail, noted that the investigation material itself indicated Malik was not present at the spot at the time of the incident and that a co-accused, including his son, Abdul Moied, had already been granted bail.
During the hearing on the state’s Special Leave Petition (SLP), the Supreme Court questioned the applicability of the UAPA, a stringent anti-terror law.
“If a mob goes and burns down a police station, will that per se attract UAPA?” Justice Bagchi asked.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, argued that UAPA is attracted if there is a threat to public order. Justice Bagchi responded that there is a clear distinction in law between a public order issue and a threat to national security, and UAPA is meant for the latter.
“We have serious doubt about the addition of UAPA, that is why we are not inclined to entertain the State’s SLP,” Justice Bagchi observed.
The Bench also took note of the slow progress of the trial.
“If demoralising of police is your concern, you should have obtained conviction in two years. You have abysmally failed,” Justice Bagchi told Bhatia, referring to the state’s argument that grant of bail would demoralise the police force.
The court dismissed the SLP, allowing Malik to remain on bail. The trial in the case will continue before the trial court.
