Rambriksha Bhagat and Others vs State of U.P.

Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned A.G.A. and perused the judgment and order of the lower court dated 5.3.2011, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No. 5, Deoria in special session trial No. 184 of 2001 arising out of crime No. 36 of 2000, police station Khampur, district Deoria.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that according to the prosecution case itself, the accused persons were in settled possession of the disputed property. Neither the Gaon Sabha nor any other person instituted any legal proceedings for their ejectment nor there was any order in their favour. According to the statement of PW-9 Shail Devi, the injured and others dismantled boundary wall and other constructions of the accused persons and tried to vacate them forcibly, therefore, the Appellants had a right of private defence of property and it appears they acted in exercise of that power. It was next submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the case in its correct perspective. It was also submitted that the Appellants were on bail during the trial and never abused the same. They are presently in jail from 5.3.2011. In case the Appellants are not released on bail, the appeal would, in due course, become infructuous as there is no hope of an early hearing of the appeal due to heavy dockets..

In my opinion, prima facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants have substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the Appellants.

Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned AGA, the Appellants Rambriksha Bhagat, Dhaneshwar, Bheem, Jitendra and Rajpati Devi involved in the aforesaid session trial are released on bail during the pendency of the appeal, on their each furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The realisation of half of the fine shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal, provided the Appellants deposit half of the fine within one month.

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photo state copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal.

Let the paper book be prepared.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course.