This appeal is filed under section 14-A(2) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to

as ‘SC/ST [POA] Act’, for short) by the appellants

challenging the order passed by the learned Addl. District

and

Sessions

Judge/Special

Judge,

Gadag

in

Crl.Misc.No.14/2023

dated

23.01.2023

whereby

the

learned Sessions Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail

petition filed by the present appellants.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that the complainant Smt. Surekha belonging to scheduled

caste lodged a complaint alleging that on 02.01.2023 in

the noon at 12.05 p.m. she was doing agricultural work in

- 3 -

her land bearing No.151/1 at Malawad. At that time, the

appellants came there by holding axe and with an

intention to commit the offences both of them quarreled

with the complainant, pulled her dress and snatched her

neck chain i.e., mangalya and they attempted to outrage

her modesty by pulling her saree also. It is further alleged

that when she tried intimate it to her brother-in-law by

mobile, both the accused snatched away her phone and

abused her in filthy language with reference to caste by

asserting that “¯Éà ¨ÉƸÀr ¤ªÀÄä ¨ÁåqÀgÀ eÁwAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß HgÁUÀ PÀ¸À©

(zÉêÀzÁ¹) ªÀiÁqÁPÀ ©qÀwÛzÀÝgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄA¢UÉ ¸ÉgÀUÀ ºÁ¹Û¢Ýj EªÀvÀÛ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄAzÀ

£ÀªÀÄä ºÉÆ®PÀÌ ºÉÆÃUÀPÀ ºÀgÀPÀvÀÛ ªÀiÁrÛgÉ£À ¯Éà ºÁzÀgÀVwÛ”. The alleged

incident is said to have taken place on 02.01.2023 at

about 12.05 p.m. and on the next day evening, the

complaint came to be lodged. On the basis of the

complaint, crime was registered and apprehending their

arrest, appellants have approached the learned Special

Judge seeking anticipatory bail. Learned Special Judge

has rejected the anticipatory bail on the ground that there

- 4 -

is prima facie material and the bar under Section 18 of

SC/ST [POA] Act is applicable. Against this order, the

appellants are before this Court.

3.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for appellants and learned H.C.G.P. for the

respondent-State. Perused the records.

4.

Learned counsel for appellants would submit

that there is civil dispute between the parties and

appellants have obtained an injunction order against the

complainant and with vengeance, this false complaint

came to be lodged. Hence, he would contend that the bar

under Section 18 of SC/ST [POA] Act is not applicable as

there is no prima facie case made out. In support of this

contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan

Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2020) 4

SCC

727

and

a

decision

of

this

Court

in

Crl.P.No.778/2021.

- 5 -

5.

Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that

there is sufficient material on record to show that prima

facie case is made out and the words used against the

complainant clearly establish the intention on the part of

the appellants to treat the complainant and humiliate with

reference to her caste. Hence, he would contend that

there is prima facie material and hence, he would seek for

rejection of the appeal.

6.

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that on the basis of the complaint,

crime was registered in Crime No.1/2023 of Ron Police

station for the offence punishable under Sections 447,

323, 354(B), 392, 504, 506, 34, 109 of IPC and under

Sections 3(1), (s), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST [POA] Act.

7.

Section 18 reads as under:

“18. Section 438 of the Code not to

apply to persons committing an offence

under the Act.—Nothing in section 438 of the

Code shall apply in relation to any case involving

- 6 -

the arrest of any person on an accusation of

having committed an offence under this Act.”

8.

Hence, as per Section 18 of SC/ST [POA] Act

there is bar for entertaining any petition filed under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Further, Section 18A of SC/ST [POA] Act makes it clear

that no preliminary enquiry is necessary for registrati