IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19524 of 2010 KAMENDRA KUMAR 'KAMESH' son of Gopal Sharan Singh, R/o village-Chhata, P.S.-Masaurhi, Dist.-Patna, presently posted as Block Education Extension Officer, Kadwa (Katihar) ……. …….Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… …..Opp.Party. ----------- 2. 27.5.2010. The sole petitioner, who, at the relevant time, was Block Education Extension Officer, Kadwa (Katihar), apprehending his arrest in Kadwa P.S. Case No.17 of 2010, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Short fact of the case is that one lady teacher Reeta Kumari, submitted a written report to the Officer Incharge, Kadwa Police Station alleging therein that in the meeting the petitioner abused and assaulted her. It was further alleged that the petitioner had abused the informant by calling her caste name, which is in the category of Scheduled Caste. On the basis of written report of the petitioner a first information report vide Kadwa P.S. Case No.17 of 2010 was registered for the offences under sections 341, 342, 323, 379 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Mr.Shivendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset submits that the present case is counter blast of the case which was registered as per the fardbeyan of this petitioner. The said case was registered as Kadwa P.S. Case No.16 of 2010. It was alleged by the petitioner 2 that he was assaulted by the informant of Kadwa P.S. Case No.17 of 2010 and her husband. Learned counsel further submits that even on the basis of fardbeyan as well as materials collected during investigation no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out. He further submits that even the learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner, had perused the case diary minutely and the learned Sessions Judge had recorded in its order dated 22.4.2010, which is the impugned order, that it was the informant of the present of the present case who assaulted the petitioner along with her husband. It has also come during investigation that nothing was brought on record to indicate that the petitioner had either abused or assaulted the informant of the present case. However, only on technicality, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Mr.Binod Kumar No.III, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that in view of section 18 of the SC/ST Act, the present anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable and the same is fit to be rejected. However, he has not denied the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the anticipatory bail petition, had noticed that this petitioner was assaulted by the informant and during investigation no material was collected to indicate that the petitioner had either abused or assaulted the informant. 3 In view of the facts, as indicated above, the court is of the opinion that for the purpose of entertaining the present anticipatory bail petition no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act, as alleged by the informant in her written report, is made out. This fact is evident from the observation of the learned Sessions Judge which was recorded after perusing the case diary. It is appropriate to quote the observation of the learned Sessions Judge made in paragraph-6 of the impugned order which is as follows: “Perused the case diary. Case diary para 7 and 8 goes to show that it was the petitioner who was beaten by the informant of the present case Rita Devi and her husband. Case diary para-7 goes to show that there was no use of any abuse nor there was any act of assault. Case diary para 7, 8 and 9 goes to show that the defence of the petitioner is well-founded and this is a very good case for regular bail. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail and the learned lower court would consider the bail prayer of the petitioner in the light of the observation made here. This is a good case for regular bail in the teeth of counter case by the petitioner. However, on the facts and circumstances and the material produced in the case diary, this anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of with observation.” Accordingly, it is a fit case in which the privilege of anticipatory bail can be extended to the petitioner. Even though in 4 the first information report section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act has been incorporated, I am of the view that such section has been added in the first information report only ornamentally. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. In the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, the above named petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Kadwa P.S. Case No.17 of 2010 subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)