The court's decision emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence and the admissibility of witness statements in considering applications for anticipatory bail.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by Petitioner/A.4 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 109 of 2022 of Sullurupet Police Station, Nellore District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 448, 326, 324, 323, 427 and 506 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C’) and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the act’).

2. Brief facts of the Prosecution case is that, the offences allegedly said to have been occurred on 15.08.2023 at about 21.40 hours at Soniagandhi nagar, Sullurupeta town, at that time, there was heavy rain and water stagnated on the street. All the accused were travelling in the car and A.4 was driving the car rashly. When the car passed, the water stagnated on the road have spilled on Sridhar and his wife and those two persons stopped the car. A1 and five members have got down the car and arguing with Sridhar and his wife. While the Defacto Complainant’s father was standing on the road, A1 along with other accused picked up quarrel with him and abused him by touching his caste on the pretext that he kept boulders on the road. When the Defacto Complainant questioned them, all the accused trespassed into the Defacto Complainant’s house by kicking the gate door, beat him on his face as a result of which, his tooth were dislocated. They also pelted stones on him and his younger brother and caused multiple injuries. A.1 also abused the Defacto Complainant’s mother on her caste lines and threatened her with dire consequences that to vacate the house and damaged flower pots and created havoc in the premises.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.4 submits that due to political influence, a false case was foisted against the Petitioner; the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the Petitioner; the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s Judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 most of the investigation is completed, except filing of the charge sheet; the other Accused in this case, were already released on bail; Petitioner was ready and willing to cooperate fully with the investigation and he is ready to furnish suitable security and abide by any conditions which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent-State opposed to grant bail to the Petitioner/A.4 on the ground of investigation is pending and if the Petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is a possibility of tampering with the evidence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/A.4, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

6. Perused the material on record. A serious objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application on the ground that crime is registered against the accused persons under section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act.

7. It is useful to reproduce section 18 of the SCs/STs Act, which reads as under:

18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act - 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 reading of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act makes it clear that merely because a person who does not belong to a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the offence under section 3(2)(v) would not get attracted. Section 3(2)(v) was amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016 which came into effect on 26th January, 2016. The words “……… on the ground that” under section 3(2)(v) have been substituted wi