JUDGMENT

K Natarajan, J. - The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.145 of 2020 registered by Chitradurga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 354(B), 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' ) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short, 'the SC/ST (POA) Act'].

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2.

3. The petitioners have contended that they are innocent of the alleged offences and a false complaint is made by the complainant with an intention to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. A land bearing survey No.12/5p1 of Bedarubommenahalli Village, Chitradurga, was fallen to the share of Chandranaik, who is the grandfather of the complainant, under panchayat parikath dated 19-11-1984. Thereafter, the said Chandranaik and his children have sold the land measuring 2 acres 10 guntas to one Shivanandamurthy, brother-in-law of the petitioners, in the year 2004 under registered sale deed and the revenue entries have been made in the name of Shivanandamurthy. Children of Chandranaik have filed collusive partition suit in O.S. No.481 of 2011 and obtained decree in the year 2012. That on 8-5-2020, when the petitioners were working in the said land, the complainant came near the land along with goondas and assaulted them. Hence, a criminal case has been registered against the complainant in Crime No.149 of 2020. On the basis of a false complaint lodged by the complainant-respondent No.2, the Police have registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the IPC and the SC/ST (POA) Act. Based upon the complaint, the Police are making efforts to arrest the petitioners. Hence, they moved bail petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Crl. Misc. No.54 of 2020 which came to be rejected on 12-6-2020. Hence, the petitioners filed this petition.

4. After issuance of notice, the complainant himself appeared and impleaded as respondent No.2 by filing Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2020 and filed objections contending that there is a prima-facie case made out against the petitioners for having committed the offences under the IPC and the SC/ST (POA) Act. In view of the amendment to the Act by insertion of Section 14A and Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, there is clear bar for granting anticipatory bail. If the bail application is rejected by the Special Court, the petitioners are required to file an appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and there is a bar under Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. He further stated that, the complainant has obtained decree in his favour by filing an Original Suit and in spite of that, the petitioners and his henchmen came and abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste in presence of the relatives of the petitioners as well as the complainant and also made an attempt to murder Poryanaik, thereby a prima-facie case is made out by the complainant in his complaint to attract the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Therefore, the petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no prima-facie case made out in the complaint in order to show that the petitioners have committed any offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act. There is no abuse or insult or intimidation by the petitioners, they have never taken the