JUDGMENT

SANDEEP K.SHINDE, J. - Apprehending the arrest in Crime No. 364/2021 registered at Kolsewadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sec. 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called, Act of 1989), Appellant is seeking prearrest bail.

2. Complainant 's case in brief, is that he was working as a Supervisor on a construction site at Kalyan of M/s Balaji Developers, of which the Appellant and Mr. Navin Jaiswani were the partners. The building constructed by M/s Balaji Developers consist of shops and flats. One shop was purchased by Mr. Vijay Singh Thakur. He was complaining water seepage in the shop. However, neither Navin Jaiswani, nor Appellant, bothered to attend the complaint. In March, 2021 Vijay Singh Thakur requested the Appellant to rent out another unsold, shop to him. Though the shop was rented out to Vijay Singh Thakur, he did not pay the rent, ever since the nation wide lockdown. On 30/06/2021 in heated verbal contention between Appellant and Complainant, over and in respect of water seepage and arrears of rent, Complainant allegedly, stood for Vijay Thakur. Upset with this, Appellant allegedly insulted and humiliated the Complainant by hurling caste based abuses. Though this incident had occurred on 30/06/2021, a written complaint was filed on 07/07/2021. Copies of which, were also forwarded to Minister and High Rank Police Officers.

3. Taking note of the written complaint, on 10th July, 2021, the crime in question came to be registered against the Appellant under Sec. 3(1) (r) and (s) of the Act of 1989.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, declined pre-arrest protection to the Appellant and therefore he has preferred this appeal under Sec. 14-A (i) of the Act of 1989.

5. Heard. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Patil, Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Phatale, learned Counsel for the Complainant. Investigating Officer is present with papers. Perused the investigation papers.

6. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel for the Appellant advanced following submissions;

"(i) Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, at the behest of one Rinku Hemandas Jaiswani, a relative of his partner, Mr. Navin Jaiswani and it is evident, from FIR filed by Rinku Jaiswani against the Appellant.

(ii) that construction, Kalyan site was completed two years before and since then the Complainant was not working with him.

(iii) that last salary paid to the Complainant was in October, 2018; in support of this submission, Mr. Suryawanshi would rely on the Bank 's statement.

(iv) although, the alleged incident had occurred on 30/06/2021, the written complaint was filed on 07/07/2021, after due deliberation.

(v) in FIR there was improvement in so far as the Complainants ' caste is concerned.

(vi) abuses allegedly hurled were not caste based.

(vii) Complaint does disclose offence under the Act, as victim was not abused or allegedly intimated only for the reason that he belongs to Schedule Caste."

Therefore, it was submitted that the facts, surrounding the incident, implies that the false case has been projected against the Appellant and in fact such incident had not taken place. Mr. Suryawanshi submitted that the allegations being false on the face of it, same would do not constitute offence under the Act of 1989, and therefore bar under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1989 would not apply.

7. Mr. Patil, learned Additional Prosecutor and Mr. Phatale, learned Counsel for the Complainant have taken preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Anticipatory Bail Application on the basis that Sec. 18 and Sec. 18-A of the Act of 1989, bars application of Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. to any case involving an accusations that the person has committed an offence under that Act. Mr. Patil submitted the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi Vs. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwlliya (2017) 13 SCC 439, has held that while considering the applicabilit