AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Public Prosecutor contended that one of the offences registered against the petitioners, is that of S. 3 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, '89, and that on account of the provisions contained in S. 18 of the said Act, no application u/s. 438, Cr. P. C. is maintainable. THE learned Public Prosecutor also urged that the petitioner did not move to the Special Court, for grant of anticipatory bail; and they had moved to the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg, who rejected the application on the sole ground that one of the offences was u/s. 3 (1} (v) of the said Act.

(2.) ON a perusal of the complaint made by Heerasingh complainant, it would appear that the complainant had himself alleged that he and his father who had some agricultural land in village Bhaoli, got the same cultivated by letting it out on rent to others. There is no assertion that the persons to whom the land had been let out, had vacated the land and delivered its possession to the petitioners. In the absence of that allegation, it could not be said that there was an offence u/s. 3 (1) (v) of the Act.