JUDGMENT : 1. The Petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.19 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 lodged a complaint on 07.05.2012 against some of the villagers alleging that the accused therein demolishing the houses for widening of the road inspite of the orders of this Court in W.P.M.P No. 12816 of 2012 in W.P. No. 10123 of 2012. 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 lodging a false complaint to the police. 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 defacto 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 petitioners. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In view of the above facts, it is clear that some of the village elders were indulging in demolition of the houses for widening the road and the owners of those houses 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 back ground, 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. 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. 8. As seen from the facts of the case, admittedly, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Omnibus allegations have been made against all the petitioners. 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. 8. As seen from the facts of the case, admittedly, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Omnibus allegations have been 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. 9. 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, and in view of Omnibus allegations made against all the accused in the complaint it cannot be said that the provisions of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are attracted against each and every accused. 10. 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.