Nuh Riot Case: Alleged Bus Driver Who Rammed Cyber Police Station Denied Bail by Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Waseem alias Tetta v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 17 February 2026
Citation: CRA-D-1081-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ramesh Kumari
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that parity cannot be claimed with co-accused granted bail where the role attributed to the applicant is qualitatively distinct and more serious. Where prima facie material, including CCTV footage, recoveries, and supporting circumstances, indicate active participation in a grave offence involving attack on a police station and rioting under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, regular bail may be declined despite completion of investigation.
Summary: The appeal was filed against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, dismissing the appellant’s application for regular bail in FIR No. 253 dated 01.08.2023 registered at Police Station City Nuh under Sections 148, 149, 332, 353, 186, 307, 395, 397, 435, 436, 120-B, 455 and 216-A IPC; Sections 25-54-59 Arms Act; Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; and Sections 10 and 11 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 .
As per the complaint lodged by PSI Suraj of Cyber Crime Police Station, Nuh, on 31.07.2023 a mob of thousands, forming part of a religious procession, surrounded the police station, pelted stones, broke the main gate and wall using a bus, climbed onto the roof, opened fire, set government and private vehicles ablaze, damaged property, and committed theft of cash and documents .
The appellant was arrested on 30.08.2023 and remained in custody thereafter . He contended that he was not named in the FIR, no specific role was attributed to him, and that he had been implicated on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused. It was argued that no test identification parade was conducted, there was no clear identification in CCTV footage, and that several co-accused had already been granted regular bail .
The State opposed the appeal, asserting that the appellant was the main accused who looted and drove the bus used to ram the wall of the Cyber Police Station. At his instance, a motorcycle allegedly used to reach the spot, clothes worn during the occurrence, and a bottle containing petrol were recovered. His location was found at the spot and CCTV footage showed him driving the bus. It was further submitted that he was a member of a WhatsApp group where the riots were allegedly planned and that he had intentionally broken his mobile phone, which was sent for forensic examination .
The Court noted that although the Investigating Officer admitted during cross-examination that the appellant’s face was not clearly identifiable in the footage, he stated that identification was based on physical appearance, clothes recovered from the appellant, and other supporting material .
Rejecting the plea of parity, the Court held that co-accused who had been granted bail were not attributed an active role comparable to that of the appellant. The appellant was prima facie identified as the person driving the bus which rammed the police station gate. Given the seriousness of allegations, including rioting, attempt to murder, and offences under the UAPA, his case stood on a different footing .
The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. However, it clarified that observations made in the order shall not be construed as an opinion on merits. The trial Court was directed to take steps for expeditious conclusion of the trial by scheduling prosecution witnesses in advance and ensuring their presence .
Decision: The appeal was dismissed. Directions were issued to the trial Court for expeditious recording of prosecution evidence .