SC refuses to cancel bail in Banbhoolpura violence case, questions UAPA invocation

The Supreme Court refused to cancel Abdul Malik's bail in the Banbhoolpura violence case, observing that personal liberty depends on the prosecution's case rather than cryptic bail orders. It also questioned the invocation of the UAPA and criticised delays in concluding the trial

New Delhi: Cryptic bail orders need not be revisited as the liberty of a person does not depend on the inaccuracy of a court, but rather hinges on the prosecution’s case, the Supreme Court said on Friday. The observations of the top court came while rejecting an appeal of the Uttarakhand government against the grant of bail by the Nainital High Court to Abdul Malik, an accused in the February 2024 Banbhoolpura violence case.

On February 8, 2024, during a demolition of a mosque, a large crowd allegedly pelted stones at security personnel and set government and private vehicles on fire. They also allegedly torched a police station and hurled petrol bombs at the police.

---

It was alleged that a conspiracy was hatched at Malik’s residence. Seeking cancellation of bail, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the state government, said that the high court passed a cryptic bail order without giving reasons.

“Even cryptic bail orders do not need to be revisited,” Justice Bagchi said. The senior lawyer said that bail orders without reasons are in the teeth of various top court judgements. “Those judgments need to be re-looked,” the judge said and questioned the invoking of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by the state police.

Earlier, Justice Bagchi, dismissing pleas of the Enforcement Directorate and the Chhattisgarh government against the high court order granting bail to Chaitanya Baghel, had expressed deep concern over the “growing practice” of routinely challenging bail orders.

“There was a judgement which said that when bail is granted, you do not need to give reasons. But when you don’t grant the bail then you give reasons,” Justice Bagchi then said.

Referring to the present case, Justice Bagchi asked, “If a mob burns down a police station, how does it attract UAPA?” It affects public order, the senior lawyer responded, adding that the grant of bail to such an accused will have a demoralising effect on police personnel.

“If you feel demoralisation of the police is your concern, then within two years you should have convicted him. You have abysmally failed in your primary duty You should not cover up the failure of your primary duty by creating the colour of sneaking an SLP against cancellation,” Justice Bagchi said.

The judge said that public order and the UAPA are different and invoking the stringent provisions can be argued. “Liberty does not depend on the inaccuracy of a court. It depends on the prosecution case,” Justice Bagchi said.

“In these facts, we don’t really require a speaking order from the High Court. It is sufficient if application of mind is indicated. He has been in custody for two years. Even if bail is granted for the wrong reason, we should not interfere,” he said.

On April 16, the Nainital High Court granted bail to Malik while allowing the appeal of the accused against the February 6, 2025 order of the Special Judge, Haldwani, denying him bail. Malik had been in judicial custody since February 23, 2024, in connection with an FIR registered at Banbhoolpura Police Station in Nainital district.

He faces charges under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Opposing the bail plea, the state government earlier told the high court that Malik and his son were the principal conspirators behind the incident. The state counsel, however, conceded that Malik was not present at the scene on February 8, 2024.