IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2727 of 2019

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2016 Thana- SC/ST District- Jamui

======================================================

PINKU SINGH Son of Madan Singh Resident of Village- Nawadih, P.S.-

Sikandara, District- Jamui

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s

:

Mr.Amrendra Kumar, Adv

For the Respondent/s

:

Mrs.Usha Kumari No.1, Spl. APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-11-2019

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order

dated 07.05.2019 in A.B.P. No.522 of 2019 passed by the learned

A.D.J.-1st, Jamui in connection with Jamui SC/ST P.S.Case No. 06

of 2016 registered under Sections 342,323,504,506/34 of the

Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3(i)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.

Allegation against the appellant and other named

accused is that they assaulted to the informant as well as to the

father of the informant by tying them with a rope. The injured got

treatment in the hospital. Prayer for anticipatory bail has been

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2727 of 2019 dt.29-11-2019

2/4

refused by the learned Special Judge on the ground that application

for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though

there is allegation in the FIR that the appellant had also

participated in the occurrence of assault, however during

investigation, it revealed through the statement of witnesses

examined before the police that the appellant was not there at the

time of occurrence. He further submits that though allegation is

that the occurrence took place at brick-kiln of the appellant,

however, it is not evident that the same was a public place or the

occurrence took place in view and presence of the public. Hence,

offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out and once

offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not made out, the bar of

consideration of his prayer for anticipatory bail is not attracted.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor for Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act opposed the

prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the statute

specifically bars entertainment of prayer for anticipatory bail, if

there is allegation of commission of offence under the Act. Hence,

no judgment passed prior to the amendment is applicable unless

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2727 of 2019 dt.29-11-2019

3/4

and until the provisions of Section 18 and 18(A) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is itself

declared ultra vires by a competent court.

Section 18 and Section 18(A) of the Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are being

reproduced below.

“18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons

committing an offence under the Act.—Nothing in

section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any

case involving the arrest of any person on an

accusation of having committed an offence under this

Act.

18-A. No enquiry or approval required.-(1) For the

purposes of this Act,-

(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be

required for registration of a First Information

Report against any person; or

(b) the investigating officer shall not

require approval for arrest, if necessary, of any

person,

against whom an accusation of having committed an

offence under this Act has been made a