IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21604 of 2010 1. JHAGRU GOSWAMI SON OF LATE CHARITRA GOSWAMI, 2. SOTRA GOSWAMI SON OF LATE GHARITRA GOSWAMI, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUGGI, P.S. MOFASIL JAMUI, DISTRICT JAMUI. --- PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR—OPP. PARTY. ----------- 2/ 09-07-2010 Heard the parties. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case instituted for offences under section 448, 379, 354 and some other allied offences under the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3 (1) (x) (xi) of the SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act. According to F.I.R. the accused persons including the petitioners are alleged to have entered inside the house of the informant and are alleged to have attempted to outrage modesty of the daughter-in-law of the informant. The informant was also assaulted on his head by a Danda. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact the present case is a counter-blast of the case lodged earlier by petitioner no.1 vide Annexure-2, and the occurrence in question has not taken place in a public view and, therefore, the offences under the provision of SC/ST(P.O.A.)Act are not applicable. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail made on behalf of the petitioners and has pointed out that from perusal of the F.I.R., vide Annexure-1, it appears that 2 the offence under section 3 (1) (xi) of the SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act is made out against the accused persons including the petitioners and in that view of the matter, the present petition under section 438 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. He has further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sajjo and others Vrs. The State of Bihar , reported in 2010 (2) B.L.J. 181 and has submitted that for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail the court is not required to make in depth enquiry at this stage and, therefore, the defence of the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage. The Court is required to see only as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not. I have perused the F.I.R. Vide Annexure-1 and on perusal thereof a clear-cut case under section 3 (1) (xi) of the SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act is made out against the accused persons and, therefore, the present petition under section 438 of the Cr. P.C. is not maintainable, which is accordingly rejected. The petitioners must surrender in the court below in connection with Munger SC & ST P.S. Case No. 26 of 2010 within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised, which may be considered and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. BTiwary ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J)