IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10126 of 2009 Sunil Singh son of Late Raghubansh Singh, resident of village Saharsa, P.S. Rohtas, Distt. Rohtas (Sasaram) Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 13.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was initially registered as complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that perusal of the complaint itself would indicate that the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act was neither committed at public place nor in public view. In the circumstances, such offence is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be right about his contention in regard to non- application of Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, yet he is not entitled for grant of bail in the event of arrest, as from the complaint, it is evident that petitioner is alleged to have set fire to the three thatched rooms of the complainant and one haystack. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to admit him to the privilege of bail. This application is, accordingly, rejected with direction to the petitioner to surrender 2 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in connection with Dehri (Harijan) P.S. Case No. 65 of 2007 within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order in the court below and apply for regular bail, which should be considered in the light of the materials collected in the case diary about the allegation of setting fire to the huts. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)