Priyanka Devi @ Priyanka Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 56767 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -90 Year- 2014 Thana -NAOKOTHI District- BEGUSARAI ====================================================== Priyanka Devi @ Priyanka Kumari D/o Ram Japo Mahto Resident of village- Rajakpur, P.S.- Nawkothi, District- Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay Mr. Randhir Kumar No-1 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. D.P.Tiwary (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5.

30-11-2016 Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Randhir Kumar No. 1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Naokothi P.S. Case No. 90 of 2014 registered initially under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently after three months, Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST Act") was added in the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on being asked as to whether in view of recent Division Bench judgment the present

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56767 of 2015 (5) dt.30-11-2016 2/2 anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be maintained, replied that present case was filed in the year 2014 before judgment of the Division Bench and as such, petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable. He has further tried to persuade the Court that on perusal of the F.I.R. itself, offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not applicable. However, fact remains that during investigation, offence under the provision of SC/ST Act was added in the F.I.R. It has been held by the Division Bench that in a case relating to offence under the provision of SC/ST Act, after rejection of bail from the lower court, petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

For that very purpose, appropriate remedy is available in the SC/ST Act itself by way of filing appeal. In view of ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25276 of 2016 dated 27-10-2016, the present petition stands dismissed as same is not maintainable. If so advised, the petitioner may file appropriate petition.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T