ORDER

1. Heard all the parties concerned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The complainant, aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court dated 5th May, 2010, granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 (accused Nos. 1 to 7), has filed the above appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant by drawing our attention to the relevant materials, namely, the complaint, the statement of the complainant and four witnesses, as well as the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'the SC/ST Act'), submitted that the High Court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail, particularly, in the light of the factual conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, Bihar on 28th November, 2008.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the claim of the Appellant.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/accused submitted that from the day, namely, 26th February, 2010, when the High Court granted anticipatory bail to these persons, no untoward incident occurred and cooperated with Investigating Officer. He also brought to our notice the earlier order of the High Court dated 26thFebruary, 2010, wherein it is mentioned that there is serious land dispute between the parties and use of filthy language by cast name, is unacceptable. Relying on this order, the counsel for the accused submitted that no interference is called for in the order passed by the High Court.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/complainant, in the order dated 28thNovember, 2008, the learned Session Judge, Saran at Chapra, after taking note of all the materials, has concluded as under:

Having considered the submissions urged at the bar, going through the impugned order and L.C.R. and finding that the learned Magistrate after perusal of complaint petition, statement of complainant and of four witnesses examined during enquiry has come to the conclusion that against the accused persons offence Under Section147/148/149/323/448 of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Act is made out which appears quite legal, proper and correct one. At this stage the Magistrate is required only to see as to whether on the basis of the materials available on the record prima facie case is made out or not? I have also perused the materials placed on the record and the Court is of the opinion that against the accused persons prima facie case as found by the learned Magistrate is made out and the accused persons have rightly been summoned. In the result finding no merit in this Criminal Revision the same is hereby dismissed.

8. It is clear that the learned Magistrate carefully perused the complaint petition, as well as the statement of the complainant and four witnesses examined during enquiry and arrived a prima facie conclusion against the accused persons that offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 448 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, is made out. In such circumstance and in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the learned Counsel relying on the decision of this Court reported in: (2012) 7 SCC 795 [Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.], submitted that the High Court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail. In similar circumstance, this Court has considered the offence under Section 3(1), as well as the bar provided under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and concluded as under:

Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

The scope of Section 18 o