M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3, in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 93 of 2016 of Thottambedu Police Station, Chittor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506, 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act (for short "the S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act"), apprehending their arrest. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14-12-2016 at about 8.00 a.m. when Naluguri Guravaiah, Naluguru Chelamaiah, Naluguru Rangaiah, K. Bhaskaraiah, Singama Veerabhadraiah and also the son of China Chelamaiah came to the fields and adjusting the ridges, de facto complainant -T. Naguramma went there and resisted them by stating that they cannot remove the ridges. At that time kondaiah, Murali abused her that "Madiga dana niku ekkada polamu edi langa" and Murali took a stone and pelted at her left eye, as a result of which she sustained a bleeding injury, they also behaved in a high-handed manner ad tried to beat the de facto complainant. Thereupon, her husband Penchalaiah and Narayanamma came and rescued her from the hands of the said persons. Thus, the de facto complainant being a member of Scheduled Caste received injuries in the hands of the petitioners and they also insulted her in public view by touching her caste name. Thereafter, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police, based on the said complaint police registered the crime and issued FIR.

2. The present petition is filed on the ground that a civil dispute is pending between the parties herein in O.S. No. 43 of 2014 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, wherein the order of interim injunction as well as police aid was granted because of the frequent interference of the de facto complainant and her family members by violating the orders of the Civil Court. The petitioners herein also lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 323, 341, 447 and 506 read with 34 of IPC at the first instance, but the police registered the same as Crime No. 89 of 2014 i.e. much prior to registration of present crime against the petitioners. Thus, the question of abusing the de facto complainant, raising her caste name does not arise. It is further contended that K. Bhaskaraiah is a member of Scheduled Caste and the provisions of the S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act would not attract, thereby the bar under Section 18 of S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act has no application to the facts of the present case and that the complainant was lodged with a mala fide intention and direct the Station House Officer, Thottambedu Police Station to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest.

3. During hearing, Sri C. Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant only with a view to bring the petitioners to their terms by invoking Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act as there is a bar to grant pre-arrest bail, but such bar would not apply when no offence, prima facie, is committed by the petitioners and in support of his contentions he relied on a judgment of Apex Court rendered in "Vilas Panduranga Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795" "Budapap v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 106 (A.P.)", "Paracha Mohan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2013 (3) ALT (Crl.) 190 (A.P.) : 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 535" and "Karri Ramya Lathasri v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2014 (2) ALT (Crl.) 376".

4. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Andhra Pradesh would contend that when the petitioners abused the de facto complainant by touching her caste name, certainly it would attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs. and S.Ts. (PO