1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No.160 of 2013 on the file of Khammam I Town Police Station for an offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. I have heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. The petitioner is the maternal uncle of the informant/de facto complainant, she married a person belonging to scheduled caste professing Christianity. On 14.04.2013 the informant went to the house of the petitioner along with her husband. According to her, on seeing her and her husband, the petitioner abused her and her husband in the name of caste and religion. She did not mention the actual utterances made by the petitioner in the first information report. The de facto complainant belongs to Brahmin community and she married a person belonging to scheduled caste. The petitioner, who is no other than the maternal uncle of the de facto complainant presumably, belongs to Brahmin community. It is mentioned in the FIR that on the same day she along with her husband went to the I Town Police Station, Khammam and gave a report to the Sub-Inspector of Police requesting him to take action against the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities Act. It is said that the Sub-Inspector of Police called both parties to the police station and tried to compromise the matter for which the de facto complainant and her husband disagreed. On that, she gave a report to the Inspector of Police requesting to register a case against the petitioner under the provisions of the prevention of Atrocities Act and to take action against him. Thereupon, on the instructions of the Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Khammam, the police registered a case under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act and now the matter is under investigation.

4. The question requires to be considered in the present petition is when an individual is made an accused of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whether he is not entitled for anticipatory bail under any circumstances in view of the bar enacted under Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act?

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the instant case the contents of the first information report do not attract any of the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act and therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar under Section 18 of the Act. He states that a portion of the petitioner’s house was let out to the father of the de facto complainant for some time, later on being insisted by the petitioner, father of the de facto complainant vacated the house, he developed grouse against the petitioner and got a false report lodged against the petitioner through his daughter. According to the learned counsel, neither the de facto complainant nor her husband visited his house on 14.04.2013 and therefore, there was no occasion for him to abuse the de facto complainant or her husband in the name of their caste.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in view of the specific bar enacted in Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, this Court is not supposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in exercise of discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

7. It is essential to extract Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is as follows:

“18. Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.”

8. A plain reading of the provision, therefore, indicates t