ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants along with Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. P. D. Agarwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. Heard Mr. Ramchander Sahu, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 along with Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate.

4. Counsel for the appellants has filed deposition of the enquiry witnesses by way of supplementary affidavit in this case, which is taken on record.

5. Counsel for the O. P. No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit in this case, which is taken on record.

6. Counsel for the appellants submits that the present appeal is directed against the order dated 03.06.2019 passed in A.B.P. No. 562 of 2019 arising out of aforesaid complaint case which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 272 of 2018 and T.R. No. 07 of 2018 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bokaro, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected on the ground that the anticipatory bail itself is not maintainable.

7. Upon perusal of the complaint petition, this Court finds that the case has been instituted on 17.03.18 u/s 147, 148 295 295(A), 323, 341, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC & 3 of SC/ST Act by Pradeep Turi (complainant) against altogether five accused namely (1) Md Sarifuddin Ansari, (2) Jamil Ashraf Ansari, (3) Jamil Akhtar, (4) Gulam Mustafa and (5) Nayeem Akhtar @ Dablu in which complainant has alleged that he himself and accused persons are co-villagers and they are litigating terms with respect to land. Mother of complainant namely Smt. Sushila Turin had purchased 09 decimals of under Mouza–Chas, Mouza No. 30, Khata No. 136, Plot No. 271 through registered Sale Deed No. 9162 dated 04.11.1978 and she is in peaceful possession by constructing house, grainery and Bari and paying rent to the government. On 16.03.18 at about 4:00 p.m. all the accused persons having armed with lethal weapons after entering into her house abused by calling their caste name threatened to relinquish their claim over the land. Accused persons abused and assaulted complainant and his members with kicks, shoes and sleepers. It is further alleged that thereafter the accused persons went to the government road adjoining to the land of the complainant and started abusing the complainant in caste name and assaulted the complainant with fist, shoes and slippers. When Shekhar Turi, Kailash Turi, Rekha Devi came to save the complainant, the accused persons again assaulted the complainant by saying caste name and also started spitting on the complainant. It also alleged that the accused persons also obstructed the ladies of the family of the complainant from worshipping in the temple and threatened them.

8. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case, cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (x) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1989), although the correct provision of law would be Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act of 1989 when read with the amendment of the year 2015. He further submits that the language of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 is identical as that of Section 3 (1) (r) as amended vide amendment Act of 2015. The learned counsel further submits that the sections of the Indian Penal Code under which cognizance has been taken against the appellants, are bailable except the allegations made under the provisions of the Act of 1989 and there is hindrance with regard to maintainability of the anticipatory bail under the provisions of the Act of 1989. He submits that the anticipatory bail is maintainable, considering the facts and circumstances of this case. He submits that no prima facie case under the provisions of the Act of 1989 has been made out against the appellants, in as much as, the alleged incident had taken place in ‘public place’, but not in ‘public view’. He also submits that as