Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have antecedent of one case instituted by Ramayan Singh. It is next submitted that the SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object of ensuring protection to the SC and ST but of late it appears that the Act is being used as a tool for implicating innocent people. The learned counsel submits that appellants are related to Ramayan Singh and they have dispute relating to land. It is further submitted that Ramayan Singh instituted Bikramganj PS. Case No.596/2023 dated 19.10.2023 alleging therein that on 19.10.2023 at 8.30 A.M. he was getting the boundary of his house constructed when the present appellants came and started demolishing the newly constructed boundary and when the same was objected, Manoj and Prince tried to strangulate him (Ramayan Singh) on order of Ayodhya Singh, and thereafter, Gita snatched his chain worth Rs.70,000/- and Anjali took away Rs.10,000/- from his pocket, apart from other allegations. The learned counsel submits that from bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in Bikramganj P.S. Case Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2303 of 2024(2) dt.04-07-2024 No.596/2023, it would manifest that Ramayan Singh has not even remotely suggested that the appellants committed any act of assault on the labourer, who were doing the work of construction of his boundary.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that from bare perusal of the allegations as alleged in two F.I.R i.e. one instituted by Ramayan Singh and other by the informant, it would clearly manifest that the instant F.I.R. has been instituted by the informant at the behest of Ramayan Singh in order to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2303 of 2024(2) dt.04-07-2024 implicate the appellants in a case relating to SC/ST knowing fully well that anticipatory bail is not maintainable. It is next submitted that had the appellants assaulted the informant and Dilip, as being alleged by the informant in the present case, then Ramayan Singh would also in his F.I.R. would have mentioned about this occurrence. It is next submitted that the instant F.I.R. came to be instituted by way of after thought and legally it can be called a second F.I.R. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that police investigates in mechanical manner and the moment the case is instituted under the SC/ST Act, the police closes its eyes for reason best known. It is submitted that had the police investigated the case in its correct perspective perhaps the falsity of the allegation would have surfaced, when the allegation in the present case would have been compared with the allegation of Ramayan Singh as alleged in Bikramganj P.S. Case No.596/2023, which was instituted earlier.