The High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, necessitating an appeal against the Special Court's decision if bail is denied.

ORDER :

(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.)

This Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (New Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), is filed by the petitioner/A.2 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.69 of 2024 of G.D. Nellore Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364 read with 511, 307, 343, 419, 506 and 120B read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Paleti V.R.Maheswara Rao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. It is to be stated that respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 are brothers. Stating that respondent No.3 was missing since 18.04.2024 a written information was lodged by respondent No.2 upon which, F.I.R. No.69 of 2024 was registered on 20.04.2024 as a case of man missing.

4. During investigation, victim/respondent No.3 was rescued, and his statement was recorded on 29.04.2024 and it is thereafter all the penal provisions were added.

5. In this pre-arrest bail filed by Sri Deepak Kumar Tala a few principles of law have emerged for consideration in the context of following facts and circumstances:

Sri N.Ramachandran is the victim in this case and he is Mala by caste and is thus a person of scheduled caste. Petitioner is not a member of the scheduled caste. The victim has been a soothsayer in Agaramangalam Village of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner belongs to Bangalore of Karnataka State. In Agaramangalam Village there is Sri Sri Gurrappa Ankala Parameswari Temple. There has been acquaintance between the petitioner and the victim for about 10 years and through the efforts of the petitioner a Trust was established and the temple was developed and with reference to trusteeship disputes arose between the petitioner and the victim. It is in that regard the petitioner and others as against the victim and others filed O.S.No.683 of 2018, O.S.No.714 of 2019, O.S.No.32 of 2020 and O.S.No.4 of 2021. Those suits are pending. The allegations in the present crime are to the effect that the victim claims that the temple is on the land belonging to him and his family and the way leading to the temple was also part of their property and this petitioner has been trying to secure it unlawfully and on one occasion the petitioner abused the victim by his caste name and threatened him that he should not further do his work of soothsaying and in the event of any violation of his command he would see that his men kill him. It is alleged that on 18.04.2024 at the behest of this petitioner his personal assistant and other persons who were hired and employed by him forcibly abducted him and took him in a car and one of the persons came on that day was in police dress claiming that he was from Katpadi Police Station and the victim was taken to various places and was confined and was threatened and his efforts to escape failed and people in guard once flashing a knife threatened to kill him if he attempted to escape once again. It is stated that he overheard the conversation among the accused and understood that they all did this to obtain his signatures on certain documents to swallow the properties. Finally, when he was brought by them in a vehicle to a petrol bunk on 29.04.2024 at about 3:00 P.M. police came and rescued him. It is alleged that the petitioner knows that the victim belonged to scheduled caste and yet he was criminally intimidated and he was abducted/kidnapped with a view to forcibly obtain his signatures on documents.

6. It is undisputed that the other accused involved in this crime were arrested during investigation and according to the learned counsel for petitioner all of them were also released on regular bail granted by the Special Court.

7. The present petitioner moved