K.K. SONAWANE, J.

1. Heard. Admit. The matter is taken up for its finality on merit with the consent of both sides.

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellant in Crime No. 483 of 2018 registered with Kaij Police Station, Ta. Kaij, District Beed under sections 323, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and under section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1989" for the sake or brevity). The appellant-accused preferred the present appeal by invoking remedy under section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989.

3. Genesis of the appeal culled-out in brief is that, on 08-10- 2018, the complainant Laxman Rambhau Thorat resident of Salegaon, tahsil Kaij, District Beed. approached to the Police of Kaij Police Station and filed the report that appellant picked up the quarrel with him on account of payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- given in advance to him. The appellant hurled the abuses in the name of his caste with intention to insult and humiliate him within public view. The appellant-accused also had an knowledge that the complainant was the member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes community. There are allegations about assault causing hurt and intimidation to the complainant. Pursuant to the report, the Police of Kaij Police Station registered the Crime No. 483 of 2018 and set the penal law in motion. The appellant and his accomplices apprehending their arrest, filed an application bearing Misc. Criminal Application No. 425 of 2018 under section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the circumstances on record and allowed the application partly for anticipatory bail in respect of other two accomplices of the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge admitted the co-accused Govind Ingle and Ajay Gomade on bail, in the event of their arrest, in the present Crime. However, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application of the present appellant on the ground that there are allegations sufficient to make out the offence under the Act of 1989 and in view of bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989, the appellant is not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail in this case. The impugned order of rejection of application for anticipatory bail of present appellant, is the subject-matter of present appeal.

4. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for appellant vehemently submitted that the present appellant is innocent of the charges pitted against him. He has not committed any crime as alleged by the prosecution. He has been falsely implicated in this case. There was money transaction in between appellant and the complainant on account of agricultural operations. The appellant insisted for refund of amount paid in advance to him, but the complainant was reluctant to repay the amount. Therefore, with malafide intention the complainant embroiled the appellant by making false allegations in the present case. According to learned counsel for appellant, the circumstances on record are not sufficient to make out offence under the Act of 1989. He relied upon the expositions of law delineated in the cases of Pravin Vasantrao Tayade Vs. State of Maharashtra ( Nagpur Bench) Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 2018 decided on 02-11-2018, Atendra Singh Rawat Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. (Gwaliar Bench) Criminal Appeal No. 7295 of 2018 decided on 11-10-2018, Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in, (2002) AllMR(Cri)(Jou) 41, Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in, (2012) CriLJ 4520, Chikkappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in, (2002) CriLJ 518, Shashikant Ramhari Tambe and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in, (2008) AllMR(Cri) 2132, Sri N.B. Gungarakoppa and others Vs State of Karnataka reported in, (2002) CriLJ 3311, Dr.