Image used for representation purpose only.
| Photo Credit: Reuters
The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday granted default bail to as many as 50 accused persons who were booked for offences like attempt to murder, rioting, and dacoity in relation to the violence that took place after the demolition of a madrasa and mosque as part of an anti-encroachment drive in Haldwani’s Banbhoolpura in February this year.
The violence had left five people dead and over 100 injured after which the affected area, Banbhoolpura, remained under curfew for 12 days.
The bail was granted by the Bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit on the ground that no charge sheet was filed in the case, even after 90 days of the incident.
“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 court noted.
The court pointed out that in three months time, the statements of only eight official witnesses and four public witnesses were recorded. Terming the investigation as “sluggish”, the court added that in the first month only two public witnesses and one official witness were examined.
It also noted that the manner in which the investigation proceeded also speaks volumes as the police took 45 days to send the recovered arms for the forensic test.
“The right to life and liberty is one of the integral part 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, it (the enactments) cannot allow the appellant to remain under incarceration,” the court noted.
The High Court also dismissed the lower court’s order granting more time to the police to file a charge sheet in the case stating that the Investigating Officer remained silent and did not proceed with the investigation with promptness and awaken from the “slumber” only on the expiry of period of 90 days to file the charge sheet in the case.
“…he suddenly awakes from slumber to move an application that further time is needed to complete the investigation. Such kind of interpretation which deprives citizen of this country of his valuable right to life and liberty, cannot be made,” the court added.
