IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24633 of 2009 1. YASIN ANSARI @ MD.YASIN ANSARI 2. Kasim Ansari @ Kasim 3. Qaish Ansari Versus The STATE OF BIHAR ------ 2/ 07.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is previous enmity in between the parties. One of the non- bailable offences under Section 379 of I.P.C. is super addition, while under Section 3(1) (x) does not constitute as place of occurrence is not in the public view. The place of occurrence is door which is open place in front of the house. It cannot be said that it is not in public view but a vague allegation is made against all about abusing in the name of caste. Petitioner no.1 has only been specifically alleged for the offence for abusing in the name of informant’s caste to humiliate. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner no.1 is rejected. Taking into consideration the observation made for other accused persons, allegation is only vague for the offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act. So, the prayer for grant of bail of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in connection with Complaint Case No. 19 of 2009, Tr. No. 853 of 2 2009, above named petitioner nos. 2 and 3 shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of S.D.J.M., Daudnagar, Aurangabad subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. shail (Mandhata Singh,J.)