The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday granted bail to 50 persons accused of attempt to murder, rioting, and dacoity in the February 8 violence that erupted in Haldwani city and reprimanded the state police for its “sluggish investigation”, The Hindu reported.
Six persons were killed in the violence that broke out after the Haldwani municipal corporation demolished a mosque and a madrasa in the Banbhoolpura locality on February 8, claiming that they were built illegally on government land – even though the matter was underway in the Uttarakhand High Court.
A mob had allegedly burnt down a police station and government and private vehicles.
The police had arrested over 90 persons, including five women.
On Wednesday, a division bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Purohit granted default bail to 50 accused persons noting that no chargesheet was filed in the case, even after 90 days of the incident.
According to Code of Criminal Procedure, the police have to file a chargesheet within 60 days of the remand date or 90 days in certain cases. If the chargesheet is not filed within this period, the accused can request default bail.
“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 said, according to The Indian Express.
It noted that in three months, the police have only recorded statements of eight official witnesses and four public witnesses.
“The height of the sluggish investigation is that in the first month, only two public witnesses and one official witness were examined,” the bench said.
The court observed that the arms recovered on February 13 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory only on April 1 after “inordinate and unexplained delay of 45 days”, reported The Hindu.
The articles seized on April 16 were sent to the laboratory only on May 18 after the period of 90 days was over.
“Moreover, the reason which has been cited by the investigating officer does not impress us that for the investigation yet to be completed, the custody of appellant was at all required,” the court said.
The bench also overturned a lower court order that had granted the police additional time to file the chargesheet.
It reprimanded the investigating officer for not proceeding with the investigation with promptness and waking up only when 90 days period to file the charge sheet expired.
“He [investigating officer] suddenly awakes from slumber to move an application that further time is needed to complete the investigation,” the court said. “Such kind of interpretation which deprives citizen of this country of his valuable right to life and liberty, cannot be made.”
Also read: