ORDER:

1. This criminal petition under Section 438 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioners/accused to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.113 of 2023 of Macherla Rural Police Station of Palnadu District for the offences punishable under Sections 337 , 364, 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State. On 02.01.2024, respondent agreed to take out notices to de facto complainant. None entered appearance for de facto complainant.

3. For petitioner, it is argued

• Petitioner is innocent and did not participate in the alleged crime incident.

• Facts do not make out a case for applying any of the penal provisions alleged.

• In terms of law laid down by the courts application for anticipatory bail is maintainable.

For respondents, it is argued

• Since it is a case of caste atrocity, the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

4. Perused the record.

5. As one could notice the offences alleged are both under IPC, 1860 as well as SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The application moved is under Section 438 of the CrPC seeking bail in anticipation. Since it is a case of an alleged atrocity, one shall notice the interdict contained in Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which read as below.

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

18A(1)…….

18A(2): - The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.

6. A plain reading of the above provisions may make one to think that an application for an anticipatory bail may not be even registered for the purpose of hearing. However, it was also ruled that registering a petition is purely administrative in nature and the applicability or otherwise of interdict of law such as section 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989 require judicial application of mind and judicial standards and therefore such applications are to be registered and be placed for hearing vide P.Surendran V. State , (2019) 9 SCC 154.

7. A reading of section 18 of the Act, 1989 makes it visible that the bar contained therein applies only when the accusation indicates commission of an offence under the Act, 1989. Therefore, it is always incumbent upon the court to find out from the record whether the acts alleged against the petitioner do prima facie indicate involvement of that accused for an offence under the Act, 1989. However, if no prima facie offence is made out from the allegations made in the FIR, the bar created by sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989 shall not apply and such an anticipatory bail application need to be considered in terms of section 438 CrPC vide Prathvi Raj Chauhan V. Union of India , (2020) 4 SCC 727

8. Case diary indicates that the alleged crime incident occurred on 21.12.2023. By then, this petitioner was leader of TDP for Macherla Assembly constituency. The allegations are that the de facto complainant and her family members were travelling in auto rickshaw bearing No.AP07TD6843 near quarry area in the outskirts of Kambampadu Village. There was a convoy of five vehicles going on the road and that convoy belonged to the preset petitioner. The specific allegation mentioned in the FIR is that a white colour Safari car bearing No.AP07CU4646 was dri