HARISH KUMAR
Mahesh Yadav @ Mahesh Biraji @ Mahesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
ORDER
Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the appellants and learned Spl. PP for the State. Respondent no.2 appeared suo motu through Mr. Gopal Krishna Jha, learned Advocate.
2. The present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’) has been preferred against the order dated 20.12.2023, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Araria in connection with Complaint case no. 132 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379, 354B, 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge has been pleased to reject the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the appellants.
3. The complainant accuses that on 02.06.2020 while he along with his family members had gone to his field to pluck maize crop, in the meantime, co-accused Devendra Yadav along with other accused persons came there and started abusing by taking the caste name and told him to sell out the land, in question. The accused persons further started removing the bags of maize. On protest, all
In bail hearings under SC/ST Act, public visibility of the alleged offense is crucial for denial of anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case is established under the SC/ST Act, as per the ruling in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra.
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted under the SC/ST (POA) Act if prima facie evidence exists, but prior disputes must be considered to prevent false implications.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.