ORDER :

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.

1. Both these applications arise out the Cr. No. 149 of 2019 dated 28-4-2019 on the file of the Station House Officer, Sri Potti Sriramulu, Nellore Rural, whereunder the applicants, who are A-1, A-3 to A-10 were accused of committing crimes under Section 420, 384 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 18 and 19 of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 and also 3(1)(e) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the SC ST POA Act').

2. A fatal accident that occurred on 17-4-2019 in which one Sri E. Srinivasulu died is the genesis of this entire case. The said Sri E. Srinivasulu was admitted into a hospital called Simhapuri Hospital in Nellore. The deceased was declared brain dead and later his organs were harvested. Basing on a press report, the District Administration initiated an enquiry into this episode. A Committee of Doctors enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that the Hospital and the Doctors were guilty of illegally harvesting the organs and directed that action must be taken. Thereafter, a crime (149/2019) was registered and an investigation began. The petitioners moved an application for anticipatory bail before the lower court which was dismissed. Then Crl. P. No. 3210/2019 and Crl. P. No. 3211 of 2019 were filed by the applicants, who are A-1 to A-3 to A-10 for quashing the proceedings and to grant anticipatory bail respectively.

3. On behalf of the wife of the deceased, an application (IA. No. 2 of 2019 in Crl.P. No. 3211 of 2019) was filed to implead her as a respondent. The said application is allowed and the applicant/wife of deceased was permitted to be come on record. Office is directed to make the necessary changes.

4. This Court has heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Raja Rao, D. Suresh Kumar, learned counsels for the intervener and the Learned Advocate General for respondent-State.

5. Since the issues raised in these cases are interlinked, they were taken up for hearing together.

6. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire case of the petitioners rests upon the report dated 26-4-2019 given by the Committee of Doctors. He submits that the Committee of Doctors relied upon the Transplantation of Human Organs Act ignoring the fact that the Andhra Pradesh Government has enacted its own Act called A.P. Transformation of Human Organs Act, 1995 (Act 24 of 1995). Therefore, he submits that the offences alleged are not applicable at all. He draws the attention of this Court to Act, 24 of 1995 of the Andhra Pradesh. Government and also the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (Act, 22 of 1994). In addition, learned counsel also relies upon the Rules framed by the Andhra Pradesh Government under Act, 21 of 1994 for a scheme which is popularly known as "Jeevandan scheme". He relies upon G.O. Ms. No. 184 dated 16-8-2010 under which the harvesting and transplantation of human organs is permissible in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel submits that the Doctors acted strictly as per the scheme as formulated by the Government and they harvested only one kidney from the deceased. The rest of the organs were harvested and sent to other hospitals and other recipients. He points out that there is absolutely no commercial transaction in this entire episode and that as the Organ Transplantation Centre (OTC), the hospital was entitled to one kidney as per this 'Jeevandan Scheme' and that it used only one kidney for the benefit of a needy patient after securing the consent of the wife of the deceased. Learned counsel also submits that neither Section 420 IPC nor 384 IPC are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He also submits that the subsequent inclusion of the SC ST POA Act, based on an opinion of a learned Public Prosecutor is also incorrect and that Section 3(i)(e) of the SC ST POA Act does not apply.

7. In view of the fact that the TOHO Act d