IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case of caste atrocity is established, despite the restrictions under the SC and ST Act.

ORDER :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. This criminal petition under section 438 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioner/A1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.67 of 2024 of Chapadu Police Station of YSR Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. Heard arguments of Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner/A1, Sri Venkat Challa, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

For petitioner, it is argued

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

Out of political reasons, petitioner is implicated.

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

This petitioner is the leader and other accused are his followers.

There is misuse of political power and the attempt was to harm the opposition.

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

3. Perused the record.

4. For respondent No.1/State, a counter affidavit is filed. For respondent No.2/ de facto complainant also, a counter affidavit is filed.

5. learned counsel for petitioner cited: -

1. Prathvi Raj Chauhan V. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727

2. Prabhat Kumar Mishra V. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 665

3. Bharat Chaudary V. State of Bihar, (2003) 8 SCC 77

4. Sheik Khasim Bi V. State, (1986) LawSuit (AP) 14

5. Vilas Pandurang Pawar V. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795

6. For respondents, Union of India V. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/1351/2019 is cited.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. The present application was filed during summer vacation in the month of May, 2024. After due hearing, by an order dated 30.05.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, interim protection was granted. That was continued from time to time on applications being made in that regard. A reading of the 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 an