Bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. Prima facie case is required to invoke the charging provisions of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989.

JUDGMENT

P.N.Desai, J. - The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.86/2020 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as "the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989).

2. The brief contention of the petitioners is that complaint was lodged by one Anilkumar alleging that he was staying as a tenant in the house of petitioner No.1. It is further alleged that on 14.05.2020 at 09.35 p.m. complainant was assaulted by his owner infront of a police constable. It is further alleged that on 15.05.2020 at 10.00 p.m. his owner and his wife-Vijayalaxmi called him to their house but he refused. After repeated calls by them, he went to the house of their owner, wherein petitioner No.1, his brother-in-law and one Muslim person were consuming liquor. Petitioner No.1 abused the complainant by taking his caste and assaulted him with a Karate Lanch. The brother-in-law of petitioner No.1, assaulted the complainant on his face with a fist and Muslim person kicked him on his testicles. His wife came there and tried to rescue him. The complainant ran away from the said place. Complainant then came to his house, but accused chased him and assaulted and sent out of the house. The complainant called 108 Ambulance and his wife was at the house of accused only and when the complainant went to call his wife, the house was locked and wife was wrongly confined inside the house of the petitioner No.1 for two days. The complainant got admitted himself in the Hospital. On 16.05.2020, petitioners threatened his wife to go before the PSI and asked her to give a statement in writing to the effect that, there was no assault on the complainant nor they were abused by taking his caste. So, wife of the complainant visited the complainant in the Hospital after two days and narrated about her ordeal to the complainant. So, the complainant has lodged the complaint on 22.05.2020. On the basis of complaint, the police have registered the case in Crime No.86/2020 at Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar for the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Bidar has rejected the anticipatory bail petition. So, petitioners have filed this petition on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners are absolutely false, baseless, highly motivated. There is no prima-facie material is made out against the petitioners to bring the case within the ambit of Section 3 (1) (r) (v-a) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989. In fact the complainant is a tenant in the house of petitioner No.1. Whenever petitioner No.1 asked for the rent of the house and asked to vacate the house for non-payment of arrears of rent, the complainant managed this incident and filed false and frivolous complaint to harass the petitioners and their family members. The complainant has got admitted himself in the Hospital for Superficial injuries, which he got inflicted on himself to create an incident. So, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The petitioners are permanent resident of Bidar District and they have got their respective families and own movable and immovable properties and they have got deep roots in the society. The petitioners are ready to offer sureties. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions. So, with these main grounds, the petitioners prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has filed objections contending that the offences are heinous in nature. The complainant belongs to scheduled caste and he is the tenant under petitioner No.1. Despite being aware of the complainant's ca