NABO KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, cum-Special Judge, Dumka, in connection with S.C./S.T. Act Case No. 06/2018, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to reject the anticipatory bail in connection with SC/ST Act Case No. 06/2018, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, cum-Special Judge, Dumka. And further appellants pray for grant of anticipatory bail as they have a reasonable apprehension of being arrested for allegedly committing the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with 3(1) (x) (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in connection with S.C./S.T. Act Case No. 06/2018 now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge I-cum-Special Judge, Dumka.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below has rejected the anticipatory bail of the appellants in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by holding that the anticipatory bail itself is not maintainable. Counsel for the appellants submits that considering the allegation made in the complaint petition, with particular reference to the solemn affirmation of the complainant, prima facie, no case under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the appellants. Counsel has referred to the solemn affirmation to submit that there is allegation to abuse the complainant, but the place of occurrence is in the house of the complainant. Accordingly, he submits that there is no allegation that abuse was in public view. Learned Counsel also submits that so far as outraging the modesty of the complainant is concerned, there is no allegation in the solemn affirmation although there is just an allegation of assault. Counsel submits that there is land dispute between the parties and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, basis ingredients of commission of offence under Section 3(i) (x) and 3(i) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. He submits that learned court below was not justified in holding that anticipatory bail application itself is not maintainable. Counsel submits that so far as other Sections involved in this case is concerned, i.e. Section 471 IPC, the same is bailable. Counsel submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case and in order to buy peace he is ready to give some amount by way of compensation to the complainant but the same may not prejudice his case before the learned court below.