JUDGMENT : (Navneet Kumar, J.) Heard learned defence counsel Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as also learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Tanu Kumari, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed in C.P. Case No. 3686 of 2018, in connection with SC/ST Case No. 323 of 2018, passed in ABP No. 4080 of 2023 by Special Judge SC/ST Court, Dhanbad, for the offences punishable under sections 342, 376/34 of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, by which the prayer of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected. 3. The allegation against the appellant is that he had committed rape upon the victim /complainant along with two accused persons namely Dilip Mandal and Paigam Ansari. 4. The learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submitted that on earlier occasion, an FIR was instituted by the complainant/ respondent No. 2 as far back as in the year 2014 vide Dhanbad PS Case No.658 of 2014 dated 26.6.2014 for the offences under Sections 342, 376/34 of IPC and Section 4 of SC/ST of Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against the three accused persons including this appellant. 5. It has further been submitted that the police after completion of investigation, submitted the final report on 17.06.2018 absolving all the accused persons including this appellant for want of evidence and thereafter, the protest- cum-complaint petition was filed by the victim/respondent No.2, which was registered vide C.P. Case No.3686 of 2018 and the learned trial court after holding the enquiry, found prima facie case against the three accused persons including this appellant as one of them for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide order dated 02.08.2022 and thereafter this appellant had preferred the anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 21.12.2023, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred. 6. 6. It has been submitted that it is admitted case of the prosecution, as evident from the earlier FIR that there was land dispute between the parties and the complainant-respondent No.2 had gone with the appellant voluntarily and willingly in order to resolve the dispute amicably and it appears that when the land dispute could not be resolved amicably and then the FIR was instituted. 7. It has further been pointed out that the police after thorough investigation in the earlier instituted FIR has found the entire case false and the final report submitted by the police, which is annexure-3 to this criminal appeal, where it appears that there was land dispute between the father of the informant-victim and co-accused Dilip Mandal. 8. Further it has been pointed out that the learned trial court only on the basis of the versions of the victim on SA and her mother as Enquiry Witness No.1 had taken the cognizance by holding prima facie case against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, without appreciating the facts in totality, when on the earlier occasion, on the same sets of facts and evidence, the final report was submitted finding that it was a land dispute. 9. Further it has also been pointed out that the victim was a woman aged 22 years in the year 2014 and in the light of the admitted case of the prosecution that this appellant and the complainant was acquainted with each other with respect to the sale and purchase of the land as evident from SA of the complainant and also from the statement of her mother, who has been examined as EW-1 during the course of the inquiry held under Section 202 of the CrPC. 10. Further it has also been pointed out that on earlier occasion, the co-accused Dilip Mandal have had an occasion to make an application as an Informatory Petition No. 930 of 2014 dated 19.4.2014 under section 39 of the CrPC where the co-accused Dilip Kumar Mandal along with other co-accused persons were apprehending about the false implication of the case of the complainant. The learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr. Reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 . 11. The learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Anr. Reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 . 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that since the two findings have come during the course of investigation and the inquiry, by the police and by the learned trial court respectively, in order to determine the truthfulness, genuineness and veracity of the allegations made by the complainant/respondent No.2 and therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 12. The learned APP Mrs. Vandana Bharti assisted by Ms. Tanu Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, submitted that the learned trial court on the basis of holding the inquiry has prima facie found the charges of grave offences punishable under 342, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and therefore, the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, but the learned APP did not controvert the fact that on earlier occasion, an FIR was instituted by the complainant/respondent No.2 and the police after investigation had submitted the final report finding that it was a land dispute and there was a lack of evidence to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 342, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but the learned trial court on the basis of the complaint-cum-protest petition and after holding the inquiry and recording the SA of the complainant and the statement of the mother of the victim as inquiry witness No.1 finding the prime- facie case under section 342, 376/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and therefore, the complainant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Further it has also been pointed out that in such cases where the offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, the anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of this case including the lower court records and other materials available therein. 14. In view of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, this court finds it just and proper to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 15. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of this case including the lower court records and other materials available therein. 14. In view of the persuasive submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, this court finds it just and proper to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant. 15. Accordingly, this appellant Dinesh Prasad Haiwai @ Ginesh Gupta @ Dinesh Prasad Gupta @ Dinesh Pd. Halwai is directed to be enlarged 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 court of learned Special Judge SC/ST Court, Dhanbad, in connection with ST Case No. 323 of 2018, subject to the condition that he will cooperate in the criminal proceeding, which is pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad. 16. In the result, the order dated 21.12.2023 passed in C.P. Case No. 3686 of 2018, in connection with ST Case No. 323 of 2018, passed in ABP No. 4080 of 2023 by Special Judge SC/ST Court, Dhanbad is set aside. 17. This appeal is allowed and disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority to pay the remuneration of the Amicus Ms. Tanu Kumar, as per the rules and regulations.