Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard the parties.

2. Pursuant to the last order of coordinate bench, SI, Aman Kumar Singh is present in the Court.

3. The present application has been preferred for setting aside the Order dated-10.06.2024, passed in G.R. No. 77 of 2023/S.C. & S.T. P.S. Case No. 38 of 2023, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. Act Madhubani, by which he has pleased to pass an order of proclamation (U/sec.-82 of Cr. P.C. process) against the appellants in connection with S.C. & S.T. P.S. Case No. - 38 of 2023, dated 10.06.2023, corresponding to G.R. No.- 77 of 2023 registered for offence u/sec.- 341, 323, 504, 354(B), 379, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section and 3/4 of Daain Act and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(va) of S.C. & S.T. Act 1983 as neither summon nor B.W. and N.B.W. have been issued against the appellants nor Tamila of same are available on record.

4. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that eyeing his piece of land, the accused came and wanted to construct the house. When the informant objected, was abused by taking caste name and allegation against these appellants is/are that he put a towel around his neck and tried to press it while other accused outraged the modesty of his wife as also took away certain amount/ornaments. As the Police earlier failed to lodge FIR, filed complaint whereafter finally the FIR was lodged.

5. The case came to be registered on 10.06.2023. The investigation took place in the matter and finally on 18.12.2023, the Police submitted petition before the concerned Court for issuance of warrant against the accused persons including these appellants. The order as such was received by the Police on 20.12.2023 by which non bailable warrants were issued against all the accused persons including the appellants.

6. From the record, it seems that the other accused persons immediately preferred bail after surrendering before the Count on 27.01.2024 and they were extended the relief. However, the appellants evaded arrest. The case diary shows that the Police visited the house of the appellants alongwith the warrant on 18.01.2024 but the accused were found absconding. On 28.02.2024 again, the Police tried to execute the warrant but found the accused absconding. The same fact has been recorded by the Police in the case diary on 06.04.2024 and thereafter on 05.06.2024.

7. It was in the said background that the Police through the State submitted petition by returning the nonbailable warrant against the accused, Ashok Thakur, Pawan Thakur and Punita Kumari with further prayer to the Court to pass an order for putting up the poster against the accused persons under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C.

8. On 20.06.2024, the Court accepted the said prayer/petition of the Police and accordingly, an order was passed. Learned counsel for the appellants upon query by the Court whether they preferred anticipatory bail, it was submitted that in the month of September, 2024, anticipatory bail was preferred which was rejected by the concerned Court. Later, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 4944 of 2024 was filed against the said order by the appellants herein in which interim protection has been granted on 30.10.2024 by the coordinate bench and is presently pending before the learned Special Judge, (S.C & S.T. Act), Madhubani.

9. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed by the same set of accused persons challenging the order dated 10.06.2024.

10. It is the case of the appellants that from the order dated 10.06.2024, it is not reflected that the non-bailable warrant was returned to the Court whereafter having been satisfied, the aforesaid order was passed. He submits that in that background, interference is required.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that they are the resident under the jurisdiction of Basopatti Police Station whereas the case has been lodged under SC/ST Act and as such the Police in view of the Section 79 of the Cr.P.C. was required to take the police o