Sec.18 of SC/ST (POA) Act – anticipatory Bail – alleged offence as per the allegations not taken place in public in order to humiliate the complainant – and as such the accused is entitled for anticipatory bail – their lordships of High court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the accused = S.Venkatda Lakshmamma ....Petitioner -vs- The State of Andhra Pradesh, SHO Police Station, Yellanuru, Anantapur Dist, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.... Respondent= 2014( Feb.Part )judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/ filename=10916

 Though Section 18 of

the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 enacts a bar against granting anticipatory bail if an

offence is committed under any of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, in the

instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed the offence

punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.  Each and every dispute in respect

of every Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe member with non schedule caste or non

schedule tribe member, cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of

the Act.  The said provision is attracted only if mens rea for commission of the

offence under the said Act exists.  In the present case, the ingredients of

Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted and therefore, the petitioner can

be granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 18 of

the Act.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.  .  The petitioner is therefore,

directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Yellanur Police Station,

Anantapur District, within 30 days from today and thereafter she shall be

released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum each to the

satisfaction of the said Station House Officer.

2014( Feb.Part )judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/ filename=10916

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO       

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1160 of 2014   

11-02-2014

S.Venkatda Lakshmamma ....Petitioner   

The State of Andhra Pradesh, SHO Police Station, Yellanuru, Anantapur Dist,

rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Seena Kumar

Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO       

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1160 OF 2014    

ORDER: 

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

Earlier to the present report, the petitioner gave a report to the police which

reads as follows:- The marriage of the petitioner's daughter was performed on 3-

11-2012.  There is a custom in the village, according to which, the persons

belonging to Madiga community used to beat the drums at the time of marriage on

receiving some amount from the bride's parents.  The petitioner purchased four

drums and gave them to Madiga people for the purpose of beating them at the time

of marriage of her daughter and she also gave some amount to them.  But, the

Madiga people namely (1) Gangaraju, (2) Madiga Peddanna, (3) Madiga Venkatappa  

and (4) Madiga Chinna Naganna, did not beat the drums as per the custom.

According to the petitioner, they insulted her family members at the time of her

daughter's marriage at the instance of their opponents in the village.

According to the petitioner, her relatives gave warning to Madiga people not to

beat drums at the time of the marriage of petitioner's daughter and if they do

so, they would be sent out of the village and on that there was a dispute

between the petitioner's family and her opponents in the village.

The version of the petitioner is that owing to the said dispute, the following

persons namely (1) Akuthota Obula Reddy, (2) Matka Sriramam Jalaja Reddy, (3)

Pandirlapalli Bramhananda Reddy, (4) Peddi Ramam Jalaja Reddy, (5) Prasada 

Reddy, (6) Prabhakara Reddy, (7) Obula Reddy and (8) Kuruba Sathya, trespassed 

into their house while the petitioner's husband was having meal and assaulted

him and also \threw boulders at him, due to which, he received a bleeding injury

on his leg.  Basing on the report, the police registered a case in Crime No.105

of 2013 of Yellanur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections,

147, 148, 323, 427, 506 and 149 of I.P.C., and the said case is now pending.

The version of the petitioner is that as she lodged a report against the

aforesaid persons, they set up the de facto complainant in the present case and

got filed the report with false allegations.

As per the report in the present case, on 6-12-2013 while the de facto

complainant and others were beating drums in connection with another marriage in

the village, the petitioner and her husband obstructed them and took away the

drums from their hands on the ground that they did not beat the drums at the

marriage of their daughter and also stating that the drums were purchased by the

husband of the petitioner and so saying, she took away the drums into her house.

On the next day morning the de facto complainant and others went to the house of

the petitioner and asked her to return the drums, but she refused to return them

on the ground that they did not beat the drums at the marriage of their daughter

as per the custom.  Basing on the aforesaid allegations, a case in Crime No.106

of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered in Yellanur Police Station.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime No.106 of 2013.

Though it is mentioned in the First Information Report that the petitioner

abused the de facto complainant and others in their caste name, the said

utterances were not made with a view to insult or humiliate the de facto

complainant and others in a place within public view.  The essential ingredient

of the offence is, causing intentional insult or intimidation, which is absent

in the present case.  The version of the petitioner is that she was obviously

implicated in the instant case at the instance of their opponents by setting up

the de facto complainant for the purpose of lodging the First Information Report

in the present case is quite probable.  More over the entire allegations

mentioned in the First Information Report and also in the earlier First

Information Report in Crime No.105 of 2013 obviously indicate that a dispute

arose between the petitioner and de facto complainant and his men on the issue

that the de facto complainant and his men even after taking money from the

petitioner, failed to beat the drums as per the custom in the village in

connection with the marriage of the petitioner's daughter.  Though Section 18 of

the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 enacts a bar against granting anticipatory bail if an

offence is committed under any of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, in the

instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed the offence

punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.  Each and every dispute in respect

of every Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe member with non schedule caste or non schedule tribe member, cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.  The said provision is attracted only if mens rea for commission of the

offence under the said Act exists.  In the present case, the ingredients of

Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted and therefore, the petitioner can

be granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 18 of

the Act.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.  The petitioner is therefore,

directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Yellanur Police Station,

Anantapur District, within 30 days from today and thereafter she shall be

released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum each to the

satisfaction of the said Station House Officer.

_________________  

R.KANTHA RAO,J   

Date: 11-02-2014