Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 599 (PAT)

Mahesh Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar

2005-07-12

NAVIN SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel tor the petitioners, the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalt of opposite party no. 2. 2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in a prosecution under sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(X) ot the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Attrocities Act. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners who are father and son allege false implication for the reasons of the petitioner no. 1 having preferred a Complaint Case No. 58 of 2004 on 7.1.2004 against a doctor named and identified in the petition. This was followed by institution of a complaint before the Consumer Forum by petitioner no. 1 against the said doctor. The present prosecution was then instituted on 14.4.2004 allegedly at the behest of the concerned doctor. This was followed by another prosecution against the petitioners in Vidhupur P.S. Case No. 258 of 2004 on 10.8.2004. It is further submitted that the complainant and the witnesses would be of advocates clerks in the court where the complaint case against the aforesaid doctor has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant would allege that there would be one more prosecution against the petitioners in Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 510 of 2002. It was further urged that there would be allegation against the petitioners under the S.C. & S.T. Prevention of Attrocities Act and therefore the application for anticipatory bail would not lie. 5. True it is that an application for anticipatory bail would not lie in a prosecution under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Attrocities Act. But it would also be well settled by judicial pronouncements that the Court must be per se satisfied that prima facie allegations against the petitioner be made out under the said Act. From a bare perusal of the complaint it is apparent that the allegations against the petitioners under the aforesaid Act are more cosmetic in nature that the complainant was allegedly insulted by calling his caste name in a public street. There would be no details as to the persons in whose presence it is alleged that the petitioners made the utterances. 6. There would be no details as to the persons in whose presence it is alleged that the petitioners made the utterances. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety and the submissions as made on behalf of the parties, the petitioners, namely, (1) Mahesh Prasad Singh and (2) Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Bharti are directed to surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks from today and on their so surrendering, they shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Smt. S. Trivedi, Judl. Magistrate, 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Complaint Case No. 836 of 2004.