The court emphasized the careful exercise of discretion in issuing non-bailable warrants and granting bail, considering the balance between personal liberty and societal interest.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Government Advocate.

2. This order arises out of an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred as the 'Code', seeking anticipatory bail as the petitioners are apprehending arrest as per the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 294, 323, 354(1), 448 and 506/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (x)(i) (sic) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the "S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act", after taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences.

3. A careful perusal of the records, especially, the complaint petition, the initial statement and the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur on 18.11.2015 taking cognizance of the offences as aforesaid and issuing summons as well as non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, in exercise of power under Section 87 of the Code. This Court finds that one Kali Jena has lodged a private complaint before the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur, inter alia, alleging that on 04.05.2015 at about 12 noon, while she was inside the house, the accused persons entered into the compound of the house and locked it. While the complainant restrained them, the accused persons scolded her by saying "Sali, Bedhei, Ghodagehi". They caused hurt to her, tore her wearing apparels and assaulted her by means of wood pieces. The accused persons also squeezed her breast and addressed her by saying "Tu Paluni Tote Chuinle Jati Jiba" and threatened to kill her. Due to such use of force by the accused persons, the complainant fell down. It is further borne out from the records that accused Balia Jena was instigating the accused persons to kill her. She has specifically stated that accused Bula Hazari sat over her chest and accused Kunala Jena caused hurt to her thigh. Hearing hullah, some of her co-villagers arrived there and then the accused persons left the spot.

4. Then the complainant went to Anandapur Police Station and lodged a report, but the Police advised her for treatment in the hospital, but did not register any case, so she has filed the complaint case. After recording her statement under Section 200 of the Code, the learned Magistrate has also recorded the statements of other witnesses, namely; Gura Jena, Kalpana Das and Anama Jena under Section 202 of the Code and finding a prima face case, took cognizance of offence as mentioned above against the accused persons. The learned Magistrate has further observed that as out of the alleged offences, the offence punishable under Section 3(x)(i) (sic) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act is triable by the Court of Session, he deemed it proper to issue warrant as well as summons against the accused persons for production in exercise of power under Section 87 of the Code.

5. It is apparent from the records that the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. is erroneous on several aspects. Firstly, if it is held by the learned S.D.J.M. that the case is triable by the Court of Session then Section 202 enquiry of the complainant should have also been made. In other words, the complaint's statement under Section 202 of the Code has not been recorded.

Secondly, it is seen that there is no provision of Section 3(x)(i) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, perhaps the learned Magistrate meant by such an order that he took cognizance of the Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act. Moreover, from the records it is apparent that the accused persons who have used vulgar words dispersing the caste of the complainant are not scheduled caste persons, so offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act is made out against them. But the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 3(x)(i) of the said Act.

Thirdly, the learned Magistrate has issued warrant against the petitione