Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2881
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
APURAV WALIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
BA1 308 / 2023
SL. N o.
D a t e
Office N ot e s, r e por t s, or de r s or pr oce e dings or dir e ct ions a nd Re gist r a r ’s or de r w it h Signa t ur e s
COURT’S OR JUD GE’S ORD ERS
3 4 2 BA1 No.308 of 2023 wit h BA1 No.337 of 2023 H on’ble Alok M a hr a , J. Mrs. Pushpa Joshi and Mr . Raj endra Dobhal, Senior Advocat e, assist ed by Ms. Chet na Lat wal and Mr . Shubhang Dobhal, Advocat es for t he applicant s. Mr. Deepak Bisht , Deput y Advocat e General for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand. Mrs. Gyan Mat i Kushwaha, Advocat e, holding brief of Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocat e for respondent no.2. . These fir st bail applicat ions have been m oved by t he applicant s, seeking regular bail in Case Crim e/ F.I .R. No.40 of 2023, under Sect ion 427, 447, 504, 506, 120- B of I .P.C. and Sect ion 3( 1) ( g) , 3( 1) ( dha) of S.C./ S.T. Act , r egist er ed at Police St at ion Kankhal, Dist rict Haridwar. . According t o t he F.I .R., t here is a disput e bet ween t he part ies regarding a piece of land in Khasra No.305, sit uat e at Dev pur a, Must agam , Jagj eet pur. The com plainant has alleged t hat he is possession of t he said piece of land since 2006; t hat applicant s w ere t rying t o illegally occupy t he said piece of land; t hat he got t he land dem arcat ed from t he concerned Rev enue I nspect or ( Pat wari) , but despit e t his fact , on 29.01.2023, w hen com plainant went t o t he spot , t hen t he applicant s got rem ov ed t he const r uct ion of t he com plainant by t he J.C.B. and, when he resist ed, t he applicant s hurled cast e specific abuses t o him and t hreat ened him of dire consequences. . I t is cont ended by learned Senior Counsel for t he applicant s t hat applicant s
6 5 7 have falsely been im plicat ed in t he inst ant crim e and ar e languishing in j ail since long. Lear ned Senior Counsel for t he applicant s subm it s t hat t here is no independent wit ness of t he alleged incident ; t hat t he disput e is of civil nat ure and j ust t o pressurize t he applicant s, F.I .R. has been lodged against t hem ; t hat in case, t he applicant s are gr ant ed bail, t hey will not m isuse t he sam e and will furnish t he bail sur et y as per t he sat isfact ion of t his Court . . Lear ned St at e Counsel vehem ent ly opposed t he bail applicat ion and subm it s t hat on t he basis of oral as well as docum ent ary evidence, t he I nv est igat ing Officer found cogent and credible evidence against t he applicant s, t her efore, t hey ar e not ent it led t o bail. . A Co- ordinat e Bench of t his Court vide order dat ed 28.02.2023 had grant ed int erim bail t o t he applicant . A bar e perusal of t he F.I .R. would rev eal t hat disput e is r egarding a piece of land. Since t he disput e is regarding possession of land and any disput e arising on account of possession of t he propert y would not disclose an offence under t he Act unless t he vict im is abused, int im idat ed or har assed only for t he reason t hat he/ she belongs t o Scheduled Cast e or Scheduled Tribe. . Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of “ Hit esh Verm a Vs. St at e of Ut t arakhand & anot her” , r eport ed in ( 2020) 10 SCC 710, has held t hat offence under t he Act is not est ablished m er ely on t he fact t hat t he inform ant is a m em ber of Scheduled Cast e unless t her e is an int ent ion t o hum iliat e a m em ber of Scheduled Cast e or Scheduled Tribe for t he reason t hat t he vict im
