Instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of appellants, Sadho Yadav, Rajo Yadav, Shiv Kumar Yadav @ Gonar Yadav after having been refused by the Addl. Sessions Judge, 1st, Supaul to release them on an anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.01.2017 passed in ABA No.940 of 2016 under Section 14A(2) of the SC,ST (POA) Act.

2. During course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants put stress over the order dated 01.09.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Supaul in ABA No.723 of 2016 whereby and whereunder prayer for anticipatory bail of appellants Rajo Yadav, Sadho Yadav (ABA No.723 of 2016), Shiv Kumar Yadav Gonar Yadav (ABA No.741 of 2016) were rejected while Badri Yadav, Pulkit Yadav and Punit Yadav (ABA No.723 of 2016), Raj Kumar Yadav @ Negar Yadav, Leela Yadav, Kishun Yadav, Gango Yadav and Butan Yadav (ABA No.741 of 2016) were allowed relating to Marouna P.S. Case No.22/2016, and so submitted that appellants be also allowed to avail privilege of anticipatory bail.

3. After hearing as well as going through the allegation on its face they all were noticed to explain why not their bail bonds be cancelled and in pursuance thereof, they appeared, filed their show cause.

4. Simultaneously the P.O was also show-caused who had submitted his show cause dated 22.07.2017. After perusal of the same, it is evident that the learned P.O, since superannuated had stated that though no case law was cited on behalf of respective parties, he also failed to refer the relevant judicial pronouncement but, he passed the order taking into account the principle laid down in Munna Shaw @ Munna Saw Vs. The State of Bihar relating to Cr. Misc. No.24836/2016.

5. For better appreciation, first of all the facts of the case is to be taken note of. Dhanik Lal Das had field written report on 17.03.2016 at about 04:30 PM alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 10:30 AM his co-villager Sheo Kumar Yadav @ Gonar Yadav, Raju Kumar Yadav @ Negar Yadav, Vivek Yadav, Butan Yadav, Deonath Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Sadhu Yadav, Rajo Yadav, Konkan Yadav, Leela Yadav, Ram Kishun Yadav, Ganga Ram, Badri Yadav, Surendra Yadav, Fushan Yadav, Punit Yadav, Pulkit Yadav, Neti Yadav along with some unknown persons, armed variously, came over tractor at his field and began to erect houses thereupon. After coming to know about the same, he reached to the field and protested over which, they all threatened and further directed to flee therefrom otherwise he will be murdered. Even then, he continued with his protest and said that he will not allow erection of the house over his land. Over this, they all began to assault him with fist and slap. On hearing hue and cry persons of his community arrived who intervened into the matter and during course thereof, Sheo Kumar @ Gonar Yadav assaulted his nephew Suresh Yadav by iron rod over his head as a result of which he sustained injury, became unconscious. His Bhabho Chaniya Devi was assaulted by Sadhu Yadav, who also out-raised her modesty. Chandeshwari Das, Rajo Das, Surendra Das were also assaulted by all the accused persons with lathi and iron rod. Rajo Yadav snatched away nose pin from his Bhabho. They have also destroyed the crop. They also raided their houses and looted away their belongings. They have also threatened of dire consequence.

6. Defence case as has been pleaded happens to be over bonafide land dispute and so, there would be non-application of SC,ST (POA) Act, consequent thereupon, appellants should be allowed to enjoy the privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. In Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 3316 it has been held:—

“8. 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 co