ANUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a boy aged about 19 years have come up before this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Ss. 148, 149, 323, 354, 452, 308, 506 and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Sec. 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no enmity between the complainant and one Keshav (co-accused). Learned counsel further submits that there are no direct evidence against the petitioner and he is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced only on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused Keshav and Billa.

(3.) Learned State counsel Mr. Manish Bansal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has strongly opposed the bail on the ground that once the bail is rejected by the Special Judge or the exclusive Special Court then the only appeal lies against the said order as per Sec. 14-A of SC/ST Act and the bail application under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.