ORDER:

The Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.610/2023 of Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada.

2. A case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420, 506 IPC and Section

3(1)(R), 3(1)(s) of SC ST (POA) Act cases.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 17.11.2023 at 07.00hours at the office of the accused located at Rakesh Mansion, Nandamuri Road, Vijayawada and reported on 18.11.2023 wherein the complainant is doing private job. Accused and complainant are friends. In the year September, 2022, accused approached the complainant and requested to provide Rs.20,00,000/- for hospital expenses of his mother in law. Then the complainant provided the amount to the accused without taking any documentation and surety from the complainant. Since then, the accused is not returning the amount and postponing the dates. When questioned, he complained in Spandana and during the enquiry in Spandana, the accused agreed to pay his amount and only paid Rs.2,85,000/- to the complaint. On the night of 17.11.2023 when the complainant along with his Manager went to the office of the accused, then the accused was present talking over phone by sitting in his car and when asked he behaved rudely and scolded the complainant by touching his caste and also threatened him not to come to his office again. Hence the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, the petitioner lodged a report against the complainant herein on 08.5.2023 by making certain allegations to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city and as a counter blast the complainant foisted this case and the provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act will not attract to the facts of the case and prays to grant anticipatory bail to him.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that no document is placed before this Court to show the submission of report against the complainant and prays to dismiss the petition. He further submitted that as contemplated under Section 25(a) Cr.P.C, notice has been given to the defacto complainant on 08.12.2023.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail?

POINT:

8. Perused the entire material on record.

9. In order to find out whether the ingredients of SC & ST (POA) Act will attract or not, this Court has gone through the report where there are certain allegations made against the petitioner herein. In view of the same, this Court finds that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 18(a) of the SC and ST Atrocities Act.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.255 of 2021 on 02.02.2021 wherein this Court has extended the benefits of case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar. To consider the applicability of this citation, this Court has gone through the contents of the report in this Crime registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 506 Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC & ST (POA) Act cases which are evidently less than 7 years punishment.

11. For better appreciation the relevant portion of the order in Crl.P.No.255 of 2021 dated 02.02.2021 are extracted hereunder:

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the date of the complaint, this Court is not able to appreciate the same. The punishment for the alleged offences is below seven years, the Police shall follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar scrupulously. Any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously.”

The observations made above ar