MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.

(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report lodged at case Crime No. 94 of 2006, under Sections 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) S.C.S.T. Act, P.S. Aaspur, District Pratapgarh.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even according to the F.I.R., it is a petty offence but the allegation under Section 3(1)(x) S.C.S.T. Act has been falsely made so that the petitioner may not get bail easily. His argument is that the Magistrates do not entertain bail applications under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T. Act and leave it to be decided by the Sessions Judge on the assumption that the Magistrates do not have jurisdiction in the matter as the case is triable by a Court of Session.