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 the accused persons started assaulting the complainant. When the daughter-in-law of the informant came to his rescue, the appellant no.2 Rajo Yadav hold her neck and misbehaved her. It is further alleged that the appellants and others also snatched the valuables. The matter has been brought to Panchayat, but the accused persons did not come in the Panchayati, thus the delay has occurred in filing the complaint petition.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellants contended that from the F.I.R. it is evident that the occurrence took place on 02.06.2020, but surprisingly the complaint has been filed on 17.06.2020. During enquiry, none of the witnesses have stated that the matter had ever placed in Panchayati nor there is any specific allegation of intentional insult/intimidation with intent to humiliate the informant and others in any place within the public view. It is further contended that some of the land bearing khata no. 205, which belonged to the complainant, was purchased by the co-accused, namely, Deo Narayan Yadav, in the year 1977 and the land has also been mutated in the respective name of the vendees. The aforesaid land was given to the persons of the appellants for agriculture purpose, but the complainant any how wanted to grab the said land. The complaint has been filed on the premise of a land dispute with a view to put pressure upon the appellants in order to remove them from the land.

5. Referring to the statements of the enquiry witnesses, learned Advocate for the appellants further contended that even the daughter-in-law of the complainant has stated in her deposition that neither the complainant nor her husband was present there. Moreover, none of the witnesses asserted that there was any other persons present there at the time of alleged occurrence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent no.2 vehemently oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants. Learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 contended that since cognizance has been taken after examination of enquiry witnesses in the complaint, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 471.

7. Learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 also placed on record an order of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4783 of 2023 that in similar circumstance taking reliance of the aforenoted judgment, the prayer of pre-arrest was refused.

8. After having considered the rival submissions of the parties and considering the judgments/orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the State as well as respondent no.2, this Court, prima facie, with utmost regard opined that the Hon’ble Supreme Court i