Shankar Yadav @ Sona Shankar Singh @ Sona Shankar Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.31915 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2016 Thana -ARA HARIJAN District- BHOJPUR ======================================================
1. Shankar Yadav @ Sona Shankar Singh @ Sona Shankar Yadav
2. Mohan Yadav @ Mohan Singh Both sons of Late Ram Darshan Yadav Resident of Village- Khadra, Police Station- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-08-2016 Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel , who was assisted by Sri Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sadanand Paswan, learned Special Public Prosecutor.
Two petitioners, who are named as accused in Jagdishpur S.C./ S.T. (K) P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 147, 149, 341, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (i), (v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have prayed for grant of bail in the event of their arrest. By way of referring to the F.I.R. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that land dispute in between the parties was
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31915 of 2016 (2) dt.29-08-2016 2/2 going on since long. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation. There is no specific accusation that these two petitioners committed offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act. Accordingly a prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer submit that from perusal of the F.I.R. itself there is material to attract the provisions under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act. He further submits that in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable.
After hearing and considering the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. the court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail petition may not be entertained.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T