- (1.) I. S. Mathur, J. By this petition the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party No. 2, namely, the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri, to accept surrender of the petitioner and grant him bail. It is also prayed that the opposite party No. 4 be directed "to restore the house-hold of the petitioner attached under Sections 87 and 88, Cr. P. C. ", to the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. Learned counsel for the parties agree that this petition may be finally disposed of. An F. I. R. (Annexure No. 5 to the petition) was lodged against the petitioner under Section 147/427,1. P. C. and Section 3 (10) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 1883 (M/b) of 1993 for quashing of the F. I. R. This petition was directed to be connected with Writ Petition No. 4987 of 1992 wherein the provisions of the said Act had been challenged. In the meanwhile it was directed that if any application for bail is moved by the applicant before the court concerned the said court shall not take into account the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 4 The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner surrendered before the opposite party No. 2, namely, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cheri, but he refused to accept the surrender on the ground that the High court has directed that the provisions of the aforesaid Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shall not be taken into account. It is submitted that according to the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, he will not have jurisdiction in the matter since the provisions of the said Act have been directed to be not taken into Account for grant of bail. If that was the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in refusing surrender it is patently incorrect. The order of this Court merely means that in the matter rf grant of bail the provisions of the aforesaid Act will not be taken into consideration as those were under challenge. The order, dated 20-4-1993 passed by this Court did not mean that the learned 2nd |additional Sessions Judge, opposite party No. 2, who (sic) was the designated court for the purpose of the said Act would cease to have jurisdiction or that the F. I. R. for that section stands quashed. Accordingly, the learned |2nd Additional Sessions Judge, opposite party No. 2, committed an error in refusing to accept surren der and to pass appropriate orders. 5. The petition is accordingly finally disposed of with the direction that the opposite party No. 2 shall be the "court concerned" within the meaning of the order passed in Writ Petition No 1883 (MB) of 1993 for accepting the surrender of the petitioner and for disposing of the bail application. Petition disposed of. .;