IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the presence of allegations in the FIR that meet the criteria of the SC/ST (POA) Act invokes the statutory bar against anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for courts to limit their inquiry to the FIR's contents without delving into the veracity of the allegations.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants against the order of rejection of their anticipatory bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 291/2020.

4. The appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 323/2022 registered with Police Station Officer Deulgaon Raja, relating to the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 506 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1) (r)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989').

5. The appellants are apprehending arrest at the hands of the Police as the crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the Bharat Sudhakar Khilare, on an allegation that on 20/08/2022, the present appellants found unlawful assembly and by holding weapons Axe, Sticks, Sickles and Stones in their hand, they assaulted him and his mother by entering into the agricultural field. Due to the assault, he sustained a head injury, his mother also sustained the injury and was admitted to the hospital at Jalna. It is further alleged that all the appellants hatched the plan to eliminate him as well as his mother assaulted them and abused them by referring to their caste. On the basis of the said report, the Police have registered the crime against the present appellants.

6. As far as the contentions of the appellants are concerned, they are falsely implicated in the alleged offence as there is a previous dispute between them on account of agricultural land. It is further contention of the present appellants that even if the allegations are taken as it is in the FIR, no offence is made out under the provisions of the Act of 1989, therefore, the bar under Sec. 18 and 18-A of the said Act is not applicable. It is further contention of the appellants that, their custodial interrogation is not required and hence they be protected by granting anticipatory bail.

7. The said appeal is strongly opposed by the State on the ground that the present appellants not only entered into the agricultural field of the informant but they entered with deadly weapons like Axe, Sickle in their hands and assaulted the informant as well as his brother and caused the injuries. It reveals from the investigation that the present appellants within the public view insulted and humiliated the informant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, and thereby committed the offence under the provisions of the Act of 1989 therefore, the bar under Sec. 18 and 18A is attracted, hence criminal application deserves to be rejected.

8. The informant has also raised the objection and endorsed the same contention and opposed the present appellants to release him on bail.

9. Heard learned counsel Mr A.J. Thakkar for the appellants he submitted that it reveals from the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Deulgaon Raja, that there is a previous dispute between the present appellants and the informant, on account of the previous enmity. As per the application filed before the Tahsildar, the appellants have claimed the right of way, and the notice was issued to the informant and thereafter, this false report is lodged against them. He submitted that even the allegations taken as it is, no offence is made out under the provisions of the Act of 1989 and therefore, appellants be protected by granting anticipatory bail.

10. Learned APP vehemently submitted that the recitals of the FIR show that the appellants have humiliated and insulted the informant and his mother by abusing them on their caste. Thus, there is prima-facie material against the present appellants, therefore, the bar under Ss. 18 and 18-A is attracted and the appeal deserves to be rejected.

11. Mr Madhur Deo, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterated the same contention and submitted that in view of the bar, the appeal deserves to be rejected.

12. Having heard both the s