The main legal point established in the judgment is the careful scrutiny of the allegations under the Atrocities Act and the factual aspects of the case to determine the applicability of the Act and entitlement to pre-arrest bail.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. Sonawane, J.

Heard. Admit. The matters are taken up for its finality on merit with consent of both the sides.

2. These appeals are directed against impugned Order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail to the appellants in Crime No. 335 of 2019 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, under Sections 354, 323, 447 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as "Act of 1989"). The appellants-accused preferred present appeals by invoking remedy under Section 14-A(2) of Act of 1989.

3. Genesis of appeals culled-out in brief are that on 26-09-2019, complainant - Vandana Devidas Maske, resident of Apsinga, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, approached to the Police of Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad, and filed report that she is having land Survey No. 101 in Kamtha vicinity and in respect of said land there was civil dispute pending between herself and appellants - Parmeshwar Rathod, Ranjit Todkari as well as one Bhaktwar Sayyad. According to complainant, on 13-09-2010, when she herself alongwith her father and sister were preparing field for plantation of onion crop, all the accused-appellants - Ranjeet Todakri, Aappa Bhaskar Joshi and Parmeshwar arrived in the land Survey No. 101 belonging to complainant. All the accused-appellants reprimanded her by saying that "Ye Mangtine Mazya Shetatun Baher Ja". They all started assaulting her. The appellant Parmeshwar pressed her breast with ill-intention to outrage her modesty. The other appellants instigated him. When her father and sister came there, appellants-accused left the spot.

4. Pursuant to FIR, Police of Tuljapur Police Station registered the Crime bearing No. 335 of 2019 and set the penal law in motion. The appellants-accused, apprehending their arrest, filed Criminal Bail Applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the circumstances on record and rejected the applications of accused-appellants on the ground that there are sufficient allegations to make out the alleged offence and in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the accused-appellants are not entitled for the relief of anticipatory bail in this case. The impugned orders of rejection of applications of appellants-accused for anticipatory bail are the subject-matter of present appeals.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that the appellants-accused are innocent of the charges pitted against them. They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case to wreak vengeance on account of land dispute. According to learned counsel, allegations made in the FIR are not sufficient to constitute the offence under the Act of 1989. Therefore, statutory bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989 would not be made applicable to preclude the appellants for availing the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in this case. The learned counsel contends that the appellants purchased the contentious land Gut No. 101 from the father of first informant for consideration by executing registered sale-deed. The first informant or his family members have no any concerned with it. The learned counsel drawn attention of this Court towards the document of civil litigation bearing RCS No. 20 of 2019 pending between first informant and appellants. The civil litigation was preferred for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the appellants and their family members in respect of land Gut No. 101 located at village Kamtha, District Osmanabad. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that provisions of Section 3(1)(i)(ii) of the Act of 1989 are not attracted to the facts and