Appeal against refusal of anticipatory bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court held that maintainability under Section 18 prevents examination of underlying reasons, dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit.
Approval of the order refusing anticipatory bail.
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 APPEAL (SJ) No.4077 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2018 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Alok, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl.APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-12-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated 07.02.2019 in A.B.P. No.2103 of 2018,573/2018 passed by the learned A.D.J.-I-cum-Special Judge SC/ST, Sitamarhi in connection with Riga P.S.Case No. 109 of 2018 registered under Sections 447,323,504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4077 of 2019 dt.05-12-2019 2/2
The FIR prima facie discloses commission of offence of abuse and assault on 18.02.2018 to a member of the scheduled caste.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that FIR itself would reveal that land dispute is reason for allegation. One of the appellants is aged about 82 years and the allegation is general and omnibus.
The aforesaid issue can be looked into only when the prayer for anticipatory bail would be maintainable after bar created under Section 18 and 18(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Since allegation is disclosed against the appellants and learned court below has refused the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground of maintainability, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as devoid of any
merit.
(Birendra Kumar, J)
Nitesh/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 07.12.2019 |
| Transmission Date | 07.12.2019 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail prayer is maintainable under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the refusal of anticipatory bail on grounds of maintainability.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jai Narayan Rai and others
The State of Bihar
Birendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
