Judgment This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioners/A1 to A3 in Cr.No.345/2013 on the file of Karimnagar I Town Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 353, 290 r/w.Sec.149 of IPC and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & STs (POA) Act, 1989. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. Petitioner No.1/A1 is a practicing Advocate at Karimnagar, Petitioner No.2/A2 is his wife and Petitioner No.3/A3 is his son, whereas the de facto complainant (LW 1) is the Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), working in Traffic Police Station, Karimnagar. According to the prosecution, the petitioners/A1 to A3 and the sister of A2 went for shopping in Karimnagar Town in a Maruthi car. They went inside a cloth shop by parking the car on the road side. The de facto complainant (LW 1) who was patrolling at that place along with two constables (LWs 2 & 3) found that the car was parked at no parking area, directed A3 to take away the car from the place where it was parked. Thereafter, the de facto complainant (LW 1) and two constables (LWs 2 & 3) went away from that place. Again the de facto complainant (LW 1) and two constables (LWs 2 & 3) came on the same route and found that the car was parked again at no parking area. Then, the de facto complainant (LW 1) questioned A3 for parking the car again at no parking area and there was an altercation took place between A3, a student of MBA and the de facto complainant (LW 1), during course of which, it is alleged that A3 abused the de facto complainant (LW 1) as “Lanjakodaka” and also abused him in his caste name and questioned him “as to why he was discussing with his mother?” and later he started the car and proceeded further. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and two constables chased A3 and stopped the car near Telephone exchange. On the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant (LW 1), the aforesaid crime is registered against the petitioners/A1 to A3 and others. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and two constables chased A3 and stopped the car near Telephone exchange. On the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant (LW 1), the aforesaid crime is registered against the petitioners/A1 to A3 and others. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A3 submits that A3 or any of the accused never abused the de facto complainant (LW 1) in his caste name and in fact, they do not know the caste of the de facto complainant, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A3 that in fact, the de facto complainant (LW 1) who was in drunken condition beat A3 with Lathi on his hand and caused him fracture. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A3 that the petitioners protested the highhanded act of the de facto complainant (LW 1) and further on coming to know the incident, the members of Bar Association, Karimnagar have also seriously protested the highhanded act of the de facto complainant (LW 1). The learned counsel further submits that the entire episode wherein the de facto complainant (LW 1) resorted to highhanded act and misbehaviour is reported in the news papers. The news items published and photographs showing protest by the Bar Association were made part of the record. Prior to the lodging of the report by the de facto complainant (LW 1), the 1st petitioner/A1 lodged a report before the Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Karimnagar alleging that the de facto complainant herein beat with a stick on his car and also beat his son severely due to which, the hand of his son was fractured. The said report was registered as a case in Cr.No.344/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 & 506 of IPC against the de facto complainant herein. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A3 would submit that since the First Information Report lodged against the de facto complainant herein by the 1st petitioner/A1, the de facto complainant (LW 1) lodged the present report against the petitioners herein and 20 others as a counterblast. The copy of the case diary dated 24.10.2013 in the present crime is made available for perusal of this Court. The copy of the case diary dated 24.10.2013 in the present crime is made available for perusal of this Court. In the case diary, nowhere it is stated that any of the petitioners herein abused the de facto complainant (LW 1) in the name of his caste. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A3, there was no scope for the petitioners herein to know the caste of the de facto complainant (LW 1), who is a Sub-Inspector of Police. Obviously, the report in the present case is lodged after lodging of the report by the 1st petitioner/A1 herein against the de facto complainant (LW 1). In any event, since the case diary does not show that any utterances were made by any of the petitioners herein in the name of the caste of the de facto complainant, I am of the view that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & STs (POA) Act is not attracted. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that in case of this nature, the petitioners/A1 to A3 can be granted anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners/A1 to A3 are directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Karimnagar I Town Police Station, Karimnagar District within a period of 20 days from today and on such surrender, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.