IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23831 of 2011 Idrish Sah Son of Late Gudari Sah, Resident of village- IIampur, P.S – Riga, District- Sitamarhi Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2. 20.7.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Riga P.S Case No. 82 of 2011 registered under Sections 341,323,504 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3 (1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is land dispute between the parties and for that reason the informant has falsely implicated the petitioner in this case taking the advantage of her caste as Scheduled Caste. It has also been submitted that no case under Sections 3 (1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the petitioner as per statement of the F.I.R rest section as attracted are bailable in nature. The allegation against the petitioner is to abuse the informant grabing the land for which Basigat purcha is issued in favour of informant. Mere mentioning the Section of special act does 2 not attract the provision unless the allegation does not cover in provision There is allegation of abusing the informant by taking the name of his caste and grabbing the land of the informant against the petitioner. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, it is made clear that the trial court will not be prejudiced by this order at the time of hearing of regular bail petition of the petitioner and the same shall be disposed of on its own merit taking into consideration the nature of allegation. Namita. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)