Jiyau Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1120 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


            Criminal Revision No.710 of 2022
                           With
            Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2023

Jiyau Lal                                       ...........Revisionist

                                 Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                         ......... Respondent

Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. with Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand.


                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 08.07.2016,

passed in Criminal Case No.1392 of 2011,

State of Uttarakhand vs. Jiyau Lal, by the

court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham

Singh Nagar (for short, "the case"), by which,

the revisionist has been convicted under

Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act, 1984 (for short, "the Act")

and sentenced to three months simple

imprisonment with a fine of `25,000/-; in

default of fine, the revisionist has been

directed to undergo additional simple

imprisonment for a further period of three

months and;

(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2022,

passed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2016,

Jiyau Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the

court of 1st Additional District and Sessions

Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short,

"the appeal"), by which, the appeal has been

dismissed and the order dated 08.07.2016,

passed in the case has been confirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case against the revisionist that

he raised construction on a property pertaining to Tarai

Vikas Sehkari Sangh Limited, Rudrapur (for short, "the

Sehkari Sangh").

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that, in fact, the Sehkari Sangh had instituted a

civil suit seeking injunction against the revisionist,

which they lost in the trial court and they were also

unsuccessful in the appeal. It is argued that by

concealing these facts instant FIR has been lodged and

this fact is not considered by the court below.

5. Apart from what is argued, another

question that will fall for scrutiny in this revision is, as

to whether raising construction on some other's property

could amount to mischief, as defined under Section 425

of the IPC?

6. Admit.

7. Call for the LCR.

8. List this case on 01.08.2023.

Heard on Bail Application (IA) No. 1 of 2023

9. The revisionist has been convicted and

sentenced vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2016,

under Section 3 of the Act, passed in the Case. The

judgment and order dated 08.07.2016, passed in the

case has been confirmed in the appeal.

10. It is argued that the Sehkari Sangh lost the

civil suit for injunction against the revisionist with

regard to the same land and they also lost in appeal, but

this fact was concealed before lodging of the FIR.

11. A question that will fall for scrutiny is, as

to whether raising construction on some other's property

is amount to mischief, as define under Section 425 of

the IPC?

12. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that the revisionist is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the

bail application deserves to be allowed.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. The execution of sentence sought to be

challenge in this revision shall remain in abeyance

during the pendency of this revision. Let the revisionist

be released on bail, during the pendency of this revision,

on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two

reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.04.2023 Sanjay