The court's decision was influenced by the non-maintainability of the SC/ST(POA) Act allegations and the non-exclusivity of punishment for the IPC offences, leading to the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 324, 504, 354(A), 354(B), 506, 341 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered in respondent police station Crime No.367/2017.

2. One Smt. Sowmya is the complainant in this case. She is a widow. For her livelihood she is doing tailoring work. On 17.9.2017 at 9.00 a.m. when she was alone in the house accused No.1 suddenly trespassed into her house, abused her taking the name of her caste stating that she has got a Trust registered against him. She belong to lower caste and abused her in filthy language and also stated that she should be kept outside the village. So abusing, he assaulted her with his hands. Ravi-Accused No.2 S/o accused No.1 who had come with him also abused her in filthy language taking the name of her caste. The petitioners insulted her, dragged her by holding her tuft and touched her body and private part and lowered down her reputation. They have also threatened her that if she continued the Trust she will be set fire by pouring kerosene. They also assaulted her with chappals. When she cried loudly, public going in front of the house came and after seeing them the accused persons ran away from the said place. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered against the petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that petitioners have not criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant nor they have abused her by taking the name of the caste. In fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the complaint. Learned counsel submitted that the Trust in the name of Sree Durga Devi Devalaya Trust was formed on 25.3.2017 by the petitioner No.1 and he is the President of the said Trust. There was a rival Trust formed by the complainant on 14.9.2017 after the lapse of seven months, for which, the complainant is the Joint Secretary. Earlier to the complaint filed by the complainant, there are two complaints filed by the petitioners as against the complainant, one is dated 6.11.2017 and another is dated 17.11.2017. As such, the complainant has filed false complaint as against the petitioner herein. There is no offence committed even under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST(POA) Act. Hence, he has submitted to allow the petition and to admit the petitioners to anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that this petition is under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and in view of the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, petition itself is not maintainable. He submitted that for the offence under the provisions of SC/ST(POA) Act, there are prima facie allegations against both the accused persons. Hence, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

7. The materials on record produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners show that a Trust in the name of Sree Durga Devi Devalaya Trust is registered and the present petitioner is the President of the said Trust. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that a rival Trust is formed and registered on 14.9.2017 in which the complainant is serving as Joint Secretary. This prima facie shows that the relationship between the two is not cordial. Apart from that, two complaints are filed by petitioner No.1 dated 6.11.2017 and 17.11.2017, which were first in time and earli