IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57639 of 2007 UDAY SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 5.5.2008 The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Judawanpur P.S. Case No. 40 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 504 and 171(f) of the Indian Penal Code as well as 3(X) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioner along with eight others is named in the F.I.R. The informant Minawati Devi who is a member of Schedule Caste, alleged in the F.I.R. that while she along with others was standing in a queue of booth no. 183 in Harijan Samudayik Bhawan for casting her vote in election of Mukhiya, the petitioner along with others armed with fire-arm came and started indiscriminate firing saying “Sale Harijans ko kishi sart par vote nahin dene dena hai” and that due to firing she (informant) got injury and she was referred to P.M.C.H. for treatment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Annexure-2 the officer-in-charge had also instituted one another case about the same occurrence with allegation of firing, resorted to between two groups of Prabhu Rai, Ravi Rai, Avinash Rai, Munna Rai and others as named in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that any case under SC/ST Act is not made out. The learned A.P.P. submits that any member of schedule caste is not an accused in any of the cases and that other case instituted by the officer-in-charge against the persons of the same - 2 - group who were involved in the occurrence. So far the alleged activities of the accused persons are concerned, it is submitted by the A.P.P. that in view of the aspersion made by the accused while prohibiting them for casting their votes make out a case under Section 3(vii) of the SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that Section 18 of the Act prohibits bar in granting anticipatory bail in such cases. Considering the facts of the case, I do not feel inclined to allow anticipatory bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected. (C. M.Prasad, J.) Ravi/-