The court considered the nature of the allegations and the presence of an ongoing land dispute in granting anticipatory bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated 07.07.2018 in A.B.A. No.712 of 2018/Muffasil P.S. Case No.103 of 2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger registered under Sections 147,148,149,323,379,504,506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.

3. According to FIR, there is general and omnibus allegation against the appellants to have abused and assaulted to the informant, when the informant was cutting his crops from Plot Nos.3997 and 3978.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that due to land dispute between the parties which is going on before different authorities, just to pressurize, the present false case has been lodged. The appellants had purchased Plot No.3995 through registered sale deed in the year 1991 and the referred land in the FIR are adjoining land. There is dispute of encroachment and demarcation, for the reason that all the three plots were amalgamated by the Survey Authorities wrongly, which led to the dispute. Appellants have got no criminal antecedent except a case lodged by the present informant.

5. Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that just a fictitious land dispute has been created, whereas in fact there is no land dispute between the parties. In the occurrence, several persons sustained injury at the hands of the appellants, which is supported by the injury report. Police has already submitted charge-sheet in this case. The independent witnesses have supported the allegation.

6. Considering the factum of land dispute which has revealed in the investigation also and general and omnibus nature of allegation, in my view, the appellants deserve anticipatory bail, accordingly, let the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000 (Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and both bailors shall be resident of territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below and further the appellants shall fully cooperate with the investigation/trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the appellants.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.