IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10811 of 2010 RAM BABU MAHTO & ORS . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2. 27-04-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail under various Sections of the IPC including Sections 379, 504, 380 and 323 etc and Section 3 (x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It has been submitted that ingredients of offence under SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted in this case and the order passed by the learned Magistrate in 144 proceeding would show that parties are having land dispute from before and occurrence has taken place on that account and not with any intention to humiliate the informant or her family members because they are members of SC and ST. It has further been submitted that on the same date a counter case has been lodged by one of the accused persons vide Annexure-2. No doubt, it appears to be a simple case wherein both the parties appear to have filed cases against each other for simple assault due to dispute over land but the allegation in the FIR disclosed that the complainant and her family members were abused by mentioning their caste status and allegedly some damage was caused to their residential house and property were also removed. In that view of the matter, it is not found appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in view of Section-18 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. - 2 - Considering the simple nature of the occurrence and land dispute between the parties, it is observed that if the petitioners surrender within six weeks and seek regular bail, in that case, the prayer for bail should be considered favourably with utmost expedition preferably on the date of surrender itself. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.)