AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/victim.
In pursuant of the order dated 18.08.2026, Mr. Jeetmohan Swansi, ASI Hirodih, P.S. Giridih is present before this Court.
Although Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act bars the grant of anticipatory bail, such bar would not apply in case where no prima facie offence under the Act is made out.
These appeals have been filed against the common order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Giridih in A.B.P No.1603 of 2025 in connection with Hirodih P.S. Case No.23 of 2025, for the offences under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (i),(r),(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. The matters are presently pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a land dispute between the parties. It has been further submitted that there is a delay of about 15 days in filing of the F.I.R. and the entire allegation is false and frivolous. On the above basis, prayer for anticipatory bail has been made.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the victim have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the land, in question, has been given to the victim on bhudaan and some portion of the land is being used for cultivation, but he has been stopped from cultivating the land and this itself is a crime under the SC/ST Act. Further, he has been assaulted and abused in a public place. Thus, section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act gets attracted and the appellants does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the offence under the SC/ST Act is made out and section 18 of the Act gets attracted.
Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants. Accordingly, these criminal appeals are, hereby, dismissed.
The personal appearance of the aforesaid Official is, hereby, dispensed with.