JUDGMENT : NAVNEET KUMAR, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla in A.B.P. No.285 of 2024 in connection with SC/ST Gumla P.S. Case No.02 of 2024, pending in that Court, whereby, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the gist of the allegation as set out in the F.I.R is that there are landed property dispute between the parties with respect to alleged road in the land of the informant. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the informant- respondent No.2 has constructed a house illegally for which a certificate was also issued by the Circle Officer. Further it has been submitted that the proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was also initiated by the S.D.O., Chainpur being Case No.71 of 2019 in which report was also called from the concerned police station and the report was submitted stating therein that there is a chance of breach of peace and in this background, the appellant has been made accused and even the Government officials like Circle Officer, C.I. Karamchari and B.D.O. have also been made accused. 4. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellant that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Kaushalaya Devi & Rohit Kumar have been enlarged on bail in anticipation of their arrest (Anticipatory Bail) vide order dated 12.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.596 of 5. 4. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellant that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Kaushalaya Devi & Rohit Kumar have been enlarged on bail in anticipation of their arrest (Anticipatory Bail) vide order dated 12.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.596 of 5. Further, it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is no specific allegation against this appellant, namely, Amresh Kumar Pathak and all the allegations are omnibus and general in nature and the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted in view of the fact that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the genesis of the case is the landed property dispute for the road and allegations if any are not because the informant-respondent No.2 was belonging to a particular caste in order to attract the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttrakhand ” (2020) 10 SCC 710 6. On other hand, learned APP appearing on behal of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that there are direct allegation against all the accused persons under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and appellant does not deserve to get anticipatory bail, although she did not controvert this fact that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Kaushalaya Devi & Rohit Kumar have been enlarged on bail in anticipation of their arrest (Anticipatory Bail) vide order dated 12.12.2024 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.596 of 2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this Court. 8. It is admitted the case of the prosecution that the crux of the dispute between the parties is the landed property for the road. There is no specific allegation against this appellant and all the allegations are general in nature. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this Court. 8. It is admitted the case of the prosecution that the crux of the dispute between the parties is the landed property for the road. There is no specific allegation against this appellant and all the allegations are general in nature. Further, it is found that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Kaushalaya Devi & Rohit Kumar have been enlarged on bail in anticipation of their arrest (Anticipatory Bail) vide order dated 12.12.2024 in has also been pointed that there is no evidence to substantiate the fact that the landed property dispute is arising because the victim belongs to SC/ST category rather the landed property dispute was due to road on the alleged land and as such the allegations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as pointed out by the learned APP from the case diary are not corroborated. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, it is found just and fair to interfere in the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla in A.B.P. No.285 of 2024 in connection with SC/ST Gumla P.S. Case No.02 of 2024, pending in that Court is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the appellant(s), above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gumla in connection with SC/ST Gumla P.S. Case No.02 of 2024, subject to the following conditions: (i) The appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat undue influence to the prosecution witnesses; and (ii) The appellant shall appear before the trial court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 11. This appeal is, therefore, allowed in above terms and disposed of.