IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11736 of 2009 1. RAM KISHORE SINGH,son of late Thakur Prasad Singh 2. Laxmi Devi,wife of Ram Kishore Singh Both resident of village- Ishwarpatti,P.S.-Ahiyapur,District- Muzaffarpur. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioners:M/s Rashmi Ranjan & Siyaram Pandey, Advocates For the Complainant:Mr. K.N.Diwakar,Advocate For the State :Mr. Achhaibar Singh,APP ----------- 02/ 21-04-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the State. There are two parts of the allegations-one regarding non- execution of the sale deed, even after receiving money for the same and next abusing the complainant in the name of his caste in public view to humiliate. It is admitted fact that some area of the land was executed by the petitioners in favour of the complainant. Payment has also been made excess to the consideration amount of the sale deed. According to the complainant it was for the land, which was to be executed late for more area but there is no deed for the same. It appears that both the parties collectively damaged Government revenue by showing low rate of the land. I find that there was loss of the Government revenue by the acts of the parties that is a matter of separate enquiry and next part of the incident is the offence committed under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, that is abused in the name of the complainant’s caste in public view to humiliate 2 him. According to the petitioners public view is not supported by the complainant while he appeared in the examination on solemn affirmation in course of enquiry in which he states that after abusing accused persons ousted from their house, while submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that complaint petition is clear enough about the public view followed by two of the witnesses. In my view, if the witnesses are contradictory on the point that is constituting and non-constituting of the offence, that can be doubted for constitution of any offence. According to the complainant, he was abused inside the petitioners’ house, while by his witnesses on road, that is in corroboration of the complaint petition, that is not the affair of this Court but it is for the trial court to decide whether any offence is made out or not or whether any charge is made out or not but in any case believing the allegation and finding it a case of 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act making any observation regarding non-maintainable is not justified. Accordingly, this petition for anticipatory bail is allowed. In case of arrest or surrender within one month from today in Complaint Case No.2003/2007, the above named petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Jairam Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, subject to the conditions as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )