JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners, who are accused in Crime No. 18 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seek anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The 1st petitioner, who is Ex-Service man, submitted a representation to the District Collector, Warangal, on 19.07.2012 alleging that without initiating any land acquisition proceedings and without praying any compensation, the village elders started demolishing houses situated on both sides of the road in the village under the pretext of road widening. It is also alleged that the village elders came with JCB proclainers for demolishing the houses. On the said representation, the District collector, Warangal made an endorsement to the Tahsildar, Wardannapet, directing to stop demolition and report the facts to him. 4. It is also alleged that the de-facto complainant at the instance of local MLA, who is personally supervising the road widening programme, has implicated the petitioners by obtaining a false complaint from the de-facto complainant. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place on 13.12.2012. However, the FIR was registered against the petitioners on 29.01.2013. 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the de-facto complainant was abused in the name of her caste and the provisions of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are attracted. So no anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. In view of the above facts, it is clear that some of the village elders were demolishing the houses for widening the road and house owners were objecting for the same. The villagers grievance is that they were not paid any compensation and their houses were being demolished without any notice. In this background, this petition has to be considered. 7. It is most unfortunate that the provisions of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are being misused by some of the politicians to suppress their opponents, by falsely implicating them in cases with a view to see that they don’t get regular bail. Similarly, our experience reveals that Section 498-A IPC is also being misused to implicate innocent people. Similarly, our experience reveals that Section 498-A IPC is also being misused to implicate innocent people. In the above circumstances, it becomes a duty of the Court to verify the facts and come to rescue of the innocent people who appears to be falsely implicated in such cases. Admittedly, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Omnibus allegations are made against all the petitioners. The de-facto complainant is a Ex-sarpanch of the village. It appears that some other person drafted the complaint and the de-facto complainant seems to have subscribed her signature. 8. Though the Addl. Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petitions and submitted that the provisions of the Act have been attracted, but having regard to the background of the cases and litigation between the parties, prima facie appears that the version of the de-facto complainant can be accepted on its face value. 9. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to order as follows: In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, within a period of two weeks from today, and on such surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on their executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate.