Prima facie absence of SC/ST (POA) Act provisions in the complaint and lack of criminal background of the petitioners influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

1. This matter is taken up through Video Conference today.

2. Learned counsel Sri Yatnal Parasappa Gurappa for petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for respondent are present.

3. The petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.29/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, 504, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short SC/ST (POA) Act) of the respondent Police Station.

4. The date of complaint is 04.04.2020.

5. Previously, the petitioners had made application before the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.4/2020, Special Atrocity FIR No.32/2020 and Cr.No.29/2020 under Section 438 to Cr.P.C. that came to be rejected on 21.04.2020. Hence, this petition.

6. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent.

7. Heard.

8. The substance of the complaint as could be seen from the application filed before the District Court and also in the order passed by the learned District Judge, which reads as under:

'Crime in question came to be registered for investigation of aforementioned offences including the offence of atrocity defined under the provisions of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. First informer, who is victim from the alleged act of petitioners, reveled with station house officer of respondent police station through his self written first information statement to the effect that when he along with his parents were working in their land on 04.04.2020 at 09:30 a.m. these petitioners who illegally trespassed into the land & wrongfully restrained him & insulted & abused him in his caste as basted son of 'Byada' prostitute which notified as schedule crime. Statement of victim on the commission act of petitioners cannot be discarded. There are prima-facie materials against the petitioners for commission of offence u/Sec.3(1) (r) (s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act in question. As per the provision of Section 18 of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 this court has no power to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the persons committed an offence under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, petitioners against whom there are primafacie materials for commission of alleged offence of atrocity are not entitled for the anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this point is answered in the negative.'

9. On the date of the incident, i.e., on 04.04.2020 at about 09:30 a.m., these petitioners are stated to have tress passed into the land of the complainant and wrongfully restrained the complainant and abused him as 'Byadara Sule Magane' (Son of Prostitute and abused on caste), also hit and assaulted him and caused injuries. It in this background, a case came to be registered against the petitioners. In this connection, the petitioners are apprehending arrest in the said crime number for the aforesaid offences.

10. It is brought to my notice by learned counsel for the petitioners that copy of the complaint was handed over to the learned HCGP. Learned HCGP submits that copy was served through police to the complainant.

11. Learned counsel Sri.P.G.Yatnal, for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made against the petitioners by the complainant proved to be imaginary, which are made only to threaten and blackmail the petitioners.

12. In this connection, he would further submit that the petitioners assaulted the complainant after abusing him in the name of caste, wrongfully restrained him after tress-passing into his land and also posed threat to his life.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Pratvi Raj Vs. Union of India dated 10.02.2020 and submits that the prima-facie the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act would not apply to the case on ha