IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41483 of 2009 1.RAM BABU RAI son of late Ramdeo Rai 2.Rajeev Rai son of Rambabu Rai Both resident of village-Bishwanathpur, P.S.-Dumara, Dist.-Sitamarhi Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 24.5.2010. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners while apprehending his arrest in Dumra P.S. Case No.273 of 2008 for the offences under sections 435, 379, 427 and 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Short fact of the case is that the aforesaid first information report was lodged on the basis of the written report of the informant wherein it has been disclosed that both the petitioners entered into the thatched house of the informant and they abused the informant. Thereafter, petitioner no.1, namely, Ram Babu Rai and petitioner no.2, Rajeev Rai put the house of the informant on fire. They also uprooted the tubewell of the informant and forcibly took the same. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, first information report vide Dumra P.S. Case No.273 of 2008 was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing the bail petition, submits that in this case section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act is not applicable. He submits that there is no allegation that in 2 public place occurrence had taken place. Learned counsel, while referring to annexure-2 at page 14, submits that during investigation compromise in between the parties has arrived and thereafter compromise petition was filed. So far as application of provision of section 3(x) of the SC/ST Act is concerned, it appears that only incorrect provision has been mentioned instead of section 3(v) of the SC/ST Act. In this case from the first information report itself it is evident that the house of the informant was put on fire meaning thereby they dispossessed the informant from the house. Without going into such issue, on the basis of allegation in the first information report, this court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)