ORDER : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of anticipatory bail by challenging the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned Vacation Judge, Dumka in A.B.P. No. 394 of 2024, arising out of Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 86 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 126(2), 352, 115(2), 109(1), 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S and Section 3(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by which, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected. 2. As per FIR, it has been alleged that while the informant was going to Basukinath for his duty as Magistrate during Shrawani Mela on 28.07.2024 and reached between Nandi Chowk and Kalamunch thus his vehicle was overtaken by three motorcycle borne miscreants including the appellants and started altercating with him regarding blowing of horn and when he showed his pass then all three miscreants started abusing him in the name of his caste and threatened him not to move forward and when informant tried to take photograph of their motorcycles then murderous attack was made upon him by means of dangerous weapons and when he somehow managed to reach near Forest Guest House those miscreants followed him there also however, he was saved by other officials and security force. 3. Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, learned APP for the State and Ms. Anjali Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in this case due to personal grudge of the informant. It is submitted that allegations levelled in the FIR against the appellants are false and concocted story has been developed subsequently. It is submitted that it is improbable that appellants would dare to assault the Administrative Officer of the State. It is submitted that the appellants are not named in the FIR and their name has come in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Mangal Singh @ Vivek Kumar. It is submitted that it is improbable that appellants would dare to assault the Administrative Officer of the State. It is submitted that the appellants are not named in the FIR and their name has come in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Mangal Singh @ Vivek Kumar. It is further submitted that the appellants were not aware of the designation and caste of the informant at the time of alleged assault and as such the provision of SC/ST Act will not be applicable on them. It is submitted that in order to implicate them under the provisions of SC/ST Act, it must be proved that the appellants were aware of the caste of the informant, while abusing them in the name of caste. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment in the case of “Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2018) 1 SCC 742 (at paragraph nos. 7 & 9), in the case of “Dinesh @ Buddha vs. State of Rajasthan” reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771 (at paragraph no.15) and also in the case of “Ramdas & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2007) 2 SCC 170 (at paragraph no.11). It is submitted that the appellants are simple persons and they are earning their livelihood by serving some puja articles. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation against these two appellants for abusing and assaulting the informant. It is submitted that the main accused person Mangal Singh @ Vivek Kumar was arrested by the Police on spot and he has been granted a regular bail by the learned Court below vide order dated 29.08.2024. It is submitted that the informant namely, Shishir Tigga and other witnesses namely Upendra Mahto, Kundan Kumar Bhagat, Ashutosh Kumar, Jai Prakash Karmali, Gautama Kumar Modi and Ajmal Hussain whose statements have been recorded at paragraph 4, 5, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 respectively of the case diary, are not reliable, as they are interested witnesses and they are officials, who have supported the informant, where one is driver and other are the local people who supported the administration due to his influence and hence the appellants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that though the appellants are not named in the FIR but they are also involved in abusing the informant in filthy languages and assaulting him on the head and had obstructed the informant at the time of performing law and order duty on the occasion of Shrawani Mela at Basukinath. It is submitted that one of the witness Upendra Mahto (driver of the informant) has supported the case of informant and stated that when the vehicle of the informant was stopped and when the informant had tried to convince the another co-accused that the entry of his vehicle is required as he is performing law and order duty and had shown him his “Duty Identity Card” and upon which all the accused person including both the appellants started abusing him in the name of his caste and had not allowed his vehicle to go through the route. When the informant tried to snap their photo then one of the appellant assaulted him on his head and thereafter the informant returned to forest guest house but one of the accused persons enter inside the forest guest house and was apprehended. The above facts are also being supported by the other witnesses namely, Kundan Kumar Bhagat, Ashutosh Kumar Ojha, Jai Prakash Karmali, Gautam Kumar Modi and Ajmal Hussain, whose statements are recorded at paragraph nos.32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the case diary and hence, prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of the learned APP, has further submitted that the appellants had also abused the informant in the name of his caste despite knowing his caste and the religion while he was going to perform his official duty and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants may be rejected. 7. Perused the F.I.R and the case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears from the FIR that co-accused Mangal Singh and two others had restrained the official vehicle of the informant on 28.07.2024, while he was going to attend his duty as Magistrate to Shrawani Mela at Basukinath. 7. Perused the F.I.R and the case diary and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears from the FIR that co-accused Mangal Singh and two others had restrained the official vehicle of the informant on 28.07.2024, while he was going to attend his duty as Magistrate to Shrawani Mela at Basukinath. All the accused persons are alleged to have abused him in the name of his caste and he had shown his Magistrate Pass to the offending youths, but still they misbehaved and abused with him taking the name of his caste. 9. It appears that informant in subsequent statement at para-4 recorded under section 180 of the B.N.S.S and his driver Upendra Mahto at para-5 have stated that both the appellants have also abused him in the name of his caste despite knowing his caste and on presentation of identity card of the informant. It also appears that one of the co-accused Mangal Singh even went inside the forest guest house where the informant was staying. It also appears that the other witnesses namely, Kundan Kumar Bhagat, Ashutosh Kumar Ojha, Jai Prakash Karmali, Gautam Kumar Modi and Ajmal Hussain whose statements are recorded at paragraph nos.32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the case diary, have fully supported the prosecution case but they appear to be hearsay witnesses as they merely named the co-accused Mangal Singh for chasing the informant to his forest guest house. 10. So far as the judgment upon which the learned counsel for the appellants relied his submission in the case of “Asharfi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” (Supra) and “Dinesh @ Buddha vs. State of Rajasthan” (Supra), the same are not applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the above case as in the said case the concerned person was not aware about the caste of the victim girl upon whom the allegation of rape was proved. 11. So far as the judgment upon which the learned counsel for the appellants relied his submission in the case of “Ramdas & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra” (Supra) is concerned, there was a delay of about 8 days in lodging the FIR and for which the benefit was granted to the co-accused persons and as such the above judgment is also not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. vs. State of Maharashtra” (Supra) is concerned, there was a delay of about 8 days in lodging the FIR and for which the benefit was granted to the co-accused persons and as such the above judgment is also not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. This Court also finds that there may be circumstances that the appellants may in sudden provocation had abused the informant by taking the name of his caste, despite presentation of his official identity card at the time of occurrence, but this fact remains that the informant who was a government servant and working as District Planning Officer at the relevant time and was engaged on official duty in Shrawani Mela at Basukinath and the occurrence took place in public view. 13. Thus this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail, accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants is rejected. 14. However it appears that the appellants are the young people and they may have abused the informant in sudden moment in the name of his caste although deliberately but it may not be their real intention and hence the Court below will not be prejudiced by the order passed by this Court, if the appellants surrender before the Court below and apply for regular bail.