This is an oral order granting anticipatory bail in an SC/ST case. The court rejected the petitioners' claim of a false case instituted due to a land dispute. Finding allegations under the SC/ST Act sufficient and restrictions under Section 18 applicable, it dismissed the prayer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43306 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -116 Year- 2015 Thana -KHAIRA District- JAMUI
====================================================== 1. Daso Yadav, s/o Ganouri Yadav 2. Suresh Yadav S/o Kesho Yadav All are residents of village- Dhumrakola, P.S. Khaira, Dist.- Jamui .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indrajit Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
3 29-01-2016 Heard Sri Indrajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ahmad Ali, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Two petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No.116/15 registered for the offence under Sections 147,341, 323, 504, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i) (x) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is land dispute in between the parties and , as such, a false case has been instituted against the petitioners, whereas learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. He submits that of course, the allegation under the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43306 of 2015 (3) dt.29-01-2016
2/2
provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against the petitioners and in view of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, there is restriction for grant of anticipatory bail.
In view of facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for anticipatory bail in a case involving the SC/ST Act can be granted when allegations under Section 18 are made out.
Whether facts and circumstances in a land dispute case justify extending the privilege of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Daso Yadav and Suresh Yadav
The State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
