IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18237 of 2011 SANJAY PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 13.06.2011. Heard. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner is named in the written report and he is alleged to have called the informant, who was a teacher in newly created school, Shital Bhakurhar, and asked him to compensate the loss, which had occurred on the construction work on account of the conduct of the informant. It was alleged that when the informant stated that he has already paid the amount of Rs.25,000/- to the mother of the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school, the petitioner got infuriated, abused the informant calling him by his caste name and also snatched Rs.3200/- from his back pocket. The contention is that it is not indicated by the informant that the petitioner was not a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. It was further contended that in fact the 2 petitioner has been found not diligent in carrying out his obligations regarding the management and other works concerning the school and a letter of explanation was issued to him under the signature of the mother of the present petitioner. It was further contended that several complaints were received against the informant and certain important documents, like the cheque book and cash book were not traceable, for which a complaint petition was decided to be lodged against the petitioner in the General Body Meeting of the Management Committee of the school. In support of these contentions, the necessary documents have been annexed to the present petition. Undisputedly the petitioner is a teacher under the pay roll of the State Government and is fully covered by the term ‘Public Servant’ which is defined by Section 21 of the IPC. In the opinion of this Court, if a public servant on account of holding any public office complains of certain acts which might be an offence and thereby complains further of the offence being committed under the Special Act, like the Scheduled Castes 3 and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities)Act, then this court has serious doubt about the offence being constituted under the Special Act. As soon as a person is holding a public office, he becomes a public servant and in that view the most important ingredient of constituting the offence fails. This is one reason upon which this court believes that it could be doubtful whether the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could be applicable under the facts of the case. In that view of the matter, I direct that the above named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail either in the event of his arrest by the police or surrender in the court below on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sarai P.S.Case No.115 of 2010, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2)of the Cr.P.C. Brajesh Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)