The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the court to consider relevant allegations and apply stringent conditions when granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving allegations of caste abuse under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

JUDGMENT

Jyothi Mulimani, J. - Sri. B.C. Jaka, learned counsel for appellants and Sri. Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 have appeared in-person.

2. Counsel for appellants is seeking to allow the appeal and direct the respondent No. 1 to enlarge the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 161/2021 registered by the Kembhavi Police Station against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 338 & 504 R/W Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST(POA) Act').

3. Sri. B.C. Jaka, learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellants are innocent of the allegations made against them by the complainant. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Next, he submitted that the appellants have nothing to do with the alleged offence directly or indirectly, as they have been falsely involved in order to cause harassment. A further submission is made that admittedly, the first appellant is also belongs to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the Prevention of Atrocities Act will not be attracted. So far as second appellant is concerned, he has not at all abused the victim Sharanappa by taking his caste in a public place and it is only a created story of the complainant. Learned counsel vehemently urged that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are not attracted as against the appellants. However, the police authorities have mechanically registered the FIR for the offences punishable under the SC/ST (POA) Act. Lastly, he submitted that the appeal may be allowed and respondent No. 1 may be directed to enlarge the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail. Next, he submits that looking to the complaint averments, there is a prima facie case against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. A further submission is made that there is a bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act from entertaining the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The District and Sessions Judge considering all these aspects has rightly rejected the anticipatory bail application and the order does not require any interference. It is also submitted that investigation is already completed and charge sheet is now filed. The offence alleged against the appellant is also under Section 304 (A) of IPC. Accordingly, he submits that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

5. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of parties and perused the FIR, complaint and also the impugned order.

6. The complaint is lodged by one Basamma W/o Kamappa, the mother of deceased Sharanappa on 29.10.2021. It is stated that the deceased Sharanappa died due to current shock and the first appellant is responsible for the death. It is also alleged that there is a caste abuse by appellant No. 2 - Shrishaila Swamy. The complaint averments do not depict that there is a caste abuse by appellant No. 1.

I have perused the complaint with utmost care. As could be seen from the complaint, there is no allegation of caste abuse by appellant No. 1.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 has held that if the complaint does not make out prima-facie case for applicability of provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the bar created under Sections 18 and 18A shall not apply. The said aspect is contained in paragraph No. 11, which is extracted as under:-

"11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. H