IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18026 of 2010 1. SURESH PRASAD SON OF RAMAGYA PRASAD, 2. RAMBABU PRASAD SON OF RAMAGYA PRASAD, 3. AWADH KISHORE PRASAD SON OF RAMBABU PRASAD, 4. DAYASHANKAR PANDEY SON OF JAINARAIN PANDEY, 5. RAJU PANDEY @ RAJU KUMAR PANDEY SON OF JAINARAIN PANDEY, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- FULJHARIA, P.S. BAIRIA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. – PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR—OPP. PARTY. ----------- For the petitioners : M/S B.N.Mishra and B.K.Mishra, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, A.P.P. ----- 2/ 07-07-2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case instituted for offences under section 307, 354/34 and some other allied offences under the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that entire occurrence appears to have taken place because of bonafide land dispute between the parties. The father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was granted purcha under the provisions of Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act as far back as in the year 1963. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to different documents to show that in fact some of the petitioners were having their right and title over the lands in question. 2 Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that from perusal of the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1, a clear-cut case under section 3 (i) (iii) and (x) of the SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act is made out against the accused persons and, therefore, in view of bar created under section 18 of the said Act, the present petition under section 438 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. He further highlights that in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sajjo and others Vrs. State of Bihar, report in 2010 (2) B.L.J. 181 the defence of the accused is not required to be seen for the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, and further the Court is not required to make in depth enquiry about the claim of the parties. Rather only a prima facie case is required to be seen as to whether the offences under the provisions of SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act is made out or not. I have perused the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1, and found that a case under the provisions of SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act is made out against the accused persons including the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the present petition under section 438 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioners must surrender in the court below in connection with Bairia P.S. Case No. 115 of 2009 within a period of four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised, which shall be considered 3 and disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order. BTiwary ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J)