IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13433 of 2010 NAND KISHORE TRIPATHY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, Advocate, A.P.P. ------------ 2 18.5.2010 Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh learned A.P.P. for the State. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it appears that prayer for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 16.10.2006 primarily on the ground of bar created under section 18 of the SC & ST (P.O.A) Act. In view of ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sajjo and others vs State of Bihar, reported in 2010(2) BLJ, 181, there is no absolute bar in terms of 18 of the said Act regarding maintainability of petition under section 438 Cr.P.C., rather veil is required to be removed by the court for coming to a conclusion as to whether a prima facie case under the said Act is made out against the accused persons or not. Matter is required to be re-examined by the learned Sessions judge afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment of this Court. Therefore, the present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna. Such a petition, if so advised, must be filed within a period of four weeks from today. If such a petition is filed within the time granted, the learned Sessions Judge, would be - 2 - obliged to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on merit in accordance with law in the light of the ratio laid down by this court in the case of Sajjo and others (Supra). It is expected that the petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge would be considered and disposed of expeditiously. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) M.Rahman