The compromise between parties is not considered in the eyes of the law, and the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act impacts the maintainability of anticipatory bail applications.

JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - The learned counsel for the appellants is present.

2. Heard Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. This appeal has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"That the instant criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by Sri R. K. Srivastava, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, in Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 315 of 2019, arising out of Special Case (SC/ST) No. 05 of 2014, P.C.R. Case No. 263 of 2011 in Hirapur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2011, instituted under Section 143, 148, 323, 354, 426 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (I) (X) (XI) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the appellants has been rejected. The case is now pending in the Court of the Learned Additional District JudgeI, Pakur."

4. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and this is also apparent from the fact that the complainant herself has filed a petition before the learned court below that the parties have compromised the case and settled the matter out of court.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer and submits that the said compromise is of no value in the eyes of law and the learned court below has rightly held that the anticipatory bail application of the appellants, is not maintainable. She submits that the case is of the year 2014 and much time has elapsed on account of the fact that the appellants did not surrender before the learned court below. She further refers to the allegations made in the protest-cum-complaint petition and submits that there are direct allegations made against the appellants. She submits that in view of the allegations made in the protest-cum-complaint petition and considering the bar under Section 18 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable.

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and nature of allegation made in the protest-cum-complaint petition, this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below was right in rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the appellants vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 by referring to Section 18 of the aforesaid Act of 1989. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

7. The appellants are directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of 15 days from today

8. It is also observed that if the appellants make a prayer for regular bail before the learned court below and also a prayer to dispose of the same on the very same day, the learned court below will consider the prayer of the appellants and dispose of the bail applications in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the dismissal of this appeal.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ''FAX''.