BHIM UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Bhim upadhyay, Uday Upadhyay, Parmila Devi, mukesh Upadhyay and Om Prakash upadhyay apprehend their arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 341/323/504/ 354/427/34, I. P. C. as also under Section 3/4, S. C. and S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989.

(2.) THE informant Subhadra Devi who belongs to a member of scheduled caste alleged against the petitioners Uday upadhyay, Bhim, Upadhyay, Om Prakash upadhyay and Mukesh Upadhyay that they had tried to raise wall illegally on the land of the informant and they had also tried to demolish the home of the informant, thereby stopped her exit. On 23-7-2008 at about 5 p. m. when the informant opposed their high handedness it was alleged that the petitioner uday Upadhyay and Bhim Upadhyay abused her by calling her 'dusadhin' and the latter thrashed whereas, the other petitioners Om prakash Upadhyay, Mukesh Upadhyay and parmila Devi abused by using filthy languages against her.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Mr. Tripathy, to begin with, submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The entire allegations are misconceived and no offence much less under Section 3/4 of the S. C. and s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is attracted against any of them in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, it was nowhere whispered by the informant that the entire exercise of assault, using abusive language by calling her in the name of 'dusadhin' was held in presence of any witness and the written report was technically drafted by the interested person to implicate the petitioners for the alleged offence in which the Anticipatory Bail Petition is not maintainable under Section 18 of the Act.