<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Supreme%20Court">Supreme Court</a> on Monday set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's order of granting default bail to two accused in the 2024 Haldwani riots and ordered them to surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on a special leave petition filed by the State of Uttarakhand.</p><p>Taking exception to the High Court's order, the bench said, "It is absolutely unreasonable of the High Court to have made observations on the investigation and had in fact made factually incorrect statements regarding recording of statements by the investigating agency.''</p><p>"Importantly, without a doubt, the investigation was proceeded with utmost expediency in the case, which posed grave challenges to the investigation agency, considering the magnitude of the crime and the large number of accused and witnesses," the bench added.</p>.'This matter more important': Supreme Court says won't defer hearing on CJI's exclusion from panel to pick CEC.<p>The state government assailed the order granting default bail to two prime accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub by a division bench of the High Court.</p><p>The matter was related to the incident of February 8, 2024, Banbhoolpura, Haldwani riots, when a violent mob allegedly opened fire, threw stones and petrol bombs, burnt police vehicles and confined female constables in a police station which was set on fire, leading to registration of 3 separate FIRs under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 15 & 16 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and section 3, 4, 7 and 25 of the Arms Act etc.</p><p>Upon hearing the parties, the court observed that that the High Court had completely gone wrong and noted that the FIR had been filed in relation to an incident of widespread arson, rioting and damage to public property including the building of the police station wherein large number of accused persons were arraigned with the allegation of using petrol bombs and other arsenal in the incident.</p><p>The court also found that the HC failed to advert to the important fact that the accused never challenged the orders of extension of time and rejection of bail by promptly approaching the High Court and instead waited till two months before filing the appeal.</p><p>The court was of the opinion that the accused had lost the right to seek default bail by their acquiescence and set aside the order granting them default bail.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/search?q=Supreme%20Court">Supreme Court</a> on Monday set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's order of granting default bail to two accused in the 2024 Haldwani riots and ordered them to surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks.</p><p>A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on a special leave petition filed by the State of Uttarakhand.</p><p>Taking exception to the High Court's order, the bench said, "It is absolutely unreasonable of the High Court to have made observations on the investigation and had in fact made factually incorrect statements regarding recording of statements by the investigating agency.''</p><p>"Importantly, without a doubt, the investigation was proceeded with utmost expediency in the case, which posed grave challenges to the investigation agency, considering the magnitude of the crime and the large number of accused and witnesses," the bench added.</p>.'This matter more important': Supreme Court says won't defer hearing on CJI's exclusion from panel to pick CEC.<p>The state government assailed the order granting default bail to two prime accused Javed Siddiqui and Arshad Ayub by a division bench of the High Court.</p><p>The matter was related to the incident of February 8, 2024, Banbhoolpura, Haldwani riots, when a violent mob allegedly opened fire, threw stones and petrol bombs, burnt police vehicles and confined female constables in a police station which was set on fire, leading to registration of 3 separate FIRs under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 15 & 16 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and section 3, 4, 7 and 25 of the Arms Act etc.</p><p>Upon hearing the parties, the court observed that that the High Court had completely gone wrong and noted that the FIR had been filed in relation to an incident of widespread arson, rioting and damage to public property including the building of the police station wherein large number of accused persons were arraigned with the allegation of using petrol bombs and other arsenal in the incident.</p><p>The court also found that the HC failed to advert to the important fact that the accused never challenged the orders of extension of time and rejection of bail by promptly approaching the High Court and instead waited till two months before filing the appeal.</p><p>The court was of the opinion that the accused had lost the right to seek default bail by their acquiescence and set aside the order granting them default bail.</p>
