JUDGMENT : K.K. SONAWANE, J. 1. Heard. Admit. The present appeal is taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both sides. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26-10-2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No. 264 of 2018 rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellant in Crime No. I-661 of 2018 registered at Newasa Police Station under section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1989" for the sake or brevity). The appellant preferred present appeal by invoking remedy under section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989. 3. The prosecution case in short compass is that the first informant Shri Vijay Shirsath resident of Warkhed Tq. Newasa, on 14-10-2018 approached to the Police of Newasa Police Station, District Ahmednagar and lodged the report that there was temple of Goddess "Mahalaxmi" in the village and his father Ashru Shirsath was Joint Secretary whereas appellant-accused Kadubal Gore was Secretary of the Temple. The father of the first informant cast aspersion about misappropriation and illegality in the affairs of the trust of temple. Therefore, he filed complaint to the Newasa Police Station against members of Board of Trustees of the temple. It has been alleged that on 13-07- 2018 the appellant and his clerk Ashok Mane, both without any resolution of the Trust or any permission from Charity Commissioner attempted to sale the brass articles of the trust to the merchant, namely, Kumbhakarna in weekly bazar of village Nimgaon. The first informant took out the photographs in his cell phone while selling the brass articles belongs to the trust by the appellant. Thereafter, he had filed the complaint to the Police against appellant and Shri. Mane, Clerk of the trust. According to prosecution, on 28-08-2018 in the morning at about 11.00 a.m. wife Sangita of the first informant and neighbour Sangita Kamble had been to collect fire wood near canal. Meanwhile, guests arrived at the house of first informant, and therefore, he had been to call the wife Sangita near the canal. While returning to home with wife, first informant was passing from the road in front of residence of appellant-Kadubal Govind Gore. Meanwhile, guests arrived at the house of first informant, and therefore, he had been to call the wife Sangita near the canal. While returning to home with wife, first informant was passing from the road in front of residence of appellant-Kadubal Govind Gore. After seeing the first informant, the appellant taking umbrage of police complaint reprimanded him that for what reason he had taken the photographs and filed complaint against him. He hurled the abuses in the name of his caste "[1]". He has also given threats to the first informant. The wife Sangita and neighbour Sangita Kamble both had given understanding to the first informant not to file complaint against the appellant in the Police Station, which would cause their relations strained. Therefore, first informant did not file complaint to the Police Station. But, the appellant used to harass the first informant by giving castiest abuses. Eventually, first informant rushed to the Police Station and filed the FIR against the appellant. 4. Pursuant to the FIR, Police of Newasa Police Station registered the crime under section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Act of 1989 and set the penal law in motion. The appellant has an apprehension that he may be arrested in this crime. Therefore, apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, appellant rushed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa and filed the application bearing Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No. 264 of 2018 for relief of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. However, learned Sessions Judge did not give positive response for the relief of pre-arrest of appeal and rejected the application of the appellant filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa is challenged in this appeal. 5. Mr. Sapkal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the appellant has not committed any crime, but he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of dispute of the charitable trust of Mahalaxmi temple. The first informant Vijay Shirsath and his family members are in habit to making false complaint on the trustee of the temple and other villagers. Mr.Sapkal, learned counsel drawn the attention towards document of various proceedings filed on behalf of first informant and his family members including his wife and father etc. The first informant Vijay Shirsath and his family members are in habit to making false complaint on the trustee of the temple and other villagers. Mr.Sapkal, learned counsel drawn the attention towards document of various proceedings filed on behalf of first informant and his family members including his wife and father etc. and asserted that the first informant always attempted to blackmail the villagers on one or other pretext by taking disadvantage of his caste. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the factual aspect in its proper perspective. It is not considered that no evidence under the Act of 1989 was made available on record against the appellant. The utterance of word would not itself sufficient to constitute an offence under the Act of 1989. There was no mensrea or malafide intention reflects from the recitals of the FIR. There was colossal delay in filing the FIR. Learned counsel Mr. Sapkal contends that if circumstances on record are not sufficient, prima facie case to make out the offence under the Act of 1989, then the statutory bar under section 18 of the Ac of 1989 would not be made applicable in the present complaint. Therefore, he requested to allow the appeal for pre-arrest bail in favour of the appellant in this crime. 6. Learned APP for respondents raised objection and submits that the section 18-A of the Act of 1989 put embargo on the Court for exercising powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The appellants abused the complainant on his caste within public view. The circumstances reflect from the FIR are sufficient to make out the offence under sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989. Therefore, application for anticipatory bail of the appellants cannot be entertained. The learned APP produced on record the relevant documents of investigation of the crime for perusal. 7. It is to be noted that this Court in the decision of Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2018 (Kiran Madhukar Ingle Versus State of Maharashtra and another), elaborately dealt with the issue of applicability of Section 18 of the Act of 1989 to entertain the application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and made observations in paragraph Nos. 13 and 15 as under :- 13. It is explicitly made clear that the Court of Sessions or High Court can entertain the application for pre-arrest bail to ascertain its maintainability. 13 and 15 as under :- 13. It is explicitly made clear that the Court of Sessions or High Court can entertain the application for pre-arrest bail to ascertain its maintainability. The law does not permit to reject the application for anticipatory bail merely because the case has been registered under section 3 of the Act of 1989. But, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to examine as to whether the applicant at all is a fit person to be treated as accused of the crime registered under the Act of 1989. Section 18 of the Act of 1989 does not bar judicial scrutiny of the accusation made in the complaint. When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him. 14. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 15. The exposition of law as referred above unequivocally pointer to the inference that the application for anticipatory bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertainable only on perusal of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not beyond that, because once it is gathered from the FIR that the applicant is accused of committing the offence prescribed under section 3 of the Act of 1989, a bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989 would instantly operate against him. Therefore, the Courts are not permitted to enter into roving enquiry in regard to sustainability of accusation nurtured on behalf of complainant. Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law. 8. In the instant appeal, the prosecution applied the provisions of section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellants, which reads as under : "3. Moreover, further scrutiny by summoning the case diary or other material to test veracity of the allegations made in the FIR also not permissible under the law. 8. In the instant appeal, the prosecution applied the provisions of section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellants, which reads as under : "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities :- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :- (a) xxxxxxxx to (q) xxxxxxxx (r) Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view ; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; Explanation : For the purposes of this clause, the expression "object" means and includes statue, photograph and portrait." 9. After perusal of the FIR lodged against the present appellant, prima facie it reveals that the ingredients of aforesaid penal provisions do not match with factual score of the present case. The basic ingredients of section 3(1)(r)(s) are that there must be "intentional insults" or "intimidation" with "intent" to humiliate a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in any place within "public view". It is abundantly clear that mensrea is the decisive factor in the offence under Act of 1989. 10. There must be "intentional insults" or "intimidation" with "intent" to humiliate member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in any place within "public view". In the case of Shantabai Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in, (1982) CriLJ 872, it has been held that merely calling a person by his caste name though may amount to insult or abuse to him, it cannot be said to be with intent to humiliate such person. 11. In the matter-in-hand, it has been alleged that the appellant hurled castiest abuses as during the altercation on account of police complaint filed on behalf of the first informant against the applicant. If word "[1]" is taken out from the complaint for moment then other utterances that, xxx xxx xxx perceived from the FIR though indicate "threat" or "intimidation" but does not pointer to the inference that there was any intent or mensrea to humiliate the complainant on his caste within public view. If word "[1]" is taken out from the complaint for moment then other utterances that, xxx xxx xxx perceived from the FIR though indicate "threat" or "intimidation" but does not pointer to the inference that there was any intent or mensrea to humiliate the complainant on his caste within public view. The allegations in the FIR in regard to assault and intimidation taking name of caste of the complainant would be at the most fall under the provisions of Indian Penal Code under section 506 of the IPC. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that in spite of bar under section 18 of the Act of 1989, for invocation of powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., it is still open to this Court to find out by looking to the FIR of the case itself as to whether prima facie case is made out by the complainant against appellants. The circumstances on record adumbrates that the incriminating factor to show the intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate the complainant within public view on the part of appellant are lacking in this case. There is no impediment to arrive at the conclusion that there are no material prima facie on record for inference that appellant has committed offence under section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act 1989. As such, there is no statutory bar for this Court to consider the applications of the appellant filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no difficulty to allow the present appeal for the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of appellant-accused in the present crime. Hence, appeal deserves to be allowed. 13. In sequel, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 26-10-2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No. 264 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set-aside. The application of the appellant-applicant filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for his pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court is hereby allowed. 13. In sequel, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 26-10-2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa, in Criminal Misc. Application (Bail) No. 264 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set-aside. The application of the appellant-applicant filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for his pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court is hereby allowed. The appellant- Kadubal Govind Gore be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. I-661 of 2018 registered at Newasa Police Station under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [ i.e. Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 prior to amendment], on furnishing PR bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount. It is stipulated that appellant-applicant shall not indulge, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness. The appellant/applicant shall attend the Newasa Police Station, on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime. Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly. 14. The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.