AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A.K. Kashya, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have not taken the law in their own hand rather they were peacefully agitating their genuine/legal demand of compensation in lieu of the land which were given to the IPL Company. It is submitted that the demand of compensation by the local raiyats/villagers cannot be said to be illegal and unlawful but it appears that the IPL company in collusion with the police and local administration is adamant not to pay any compensation to the poor raiyats/villagers or to fulfill the genuine demands of the aggrieved villagers and on the other hand they wanted to crush the poor villagers/raiyats so that they should not make any demand or raise voice against the IPL Company. He has further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners and they are in custody from 21.10.2016 and basically it is a labour dispute, therefore, they should not be punished more.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. He has said that petitioners are named in the FIR and there is allegation that they have instigated the mob as result of which much harm has been done to the property of the company, therefore, the petitioners do no deserve bail.
Having heard counsels for both the side; having gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the court below to enlarge the petitioners, above named, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- ( Twenty Thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No. 81 of 2016 ( G.R. No. 995 of 2016), with condition that petitioners will attend the trail at every date unless dispensed with by the trial court.