Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 442 (AP)

Ambati Ramesh v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-07-06

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 seeking anticipatory bail in respect of F.I.R No.211 of 2020 dated 01.06.2020 on the file of Dagadarthi Police Station, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore District in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323 and 353 read with 34 I.P.C and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "SC ST Act"). 2. Heard Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. The de facto complainant gave a complaint to the police on 01.06.2020 stating that while she was discharging her duties as a Village Volunteer with the help of her brothers on 01.06.2020 at 7:00 A.M., petitioner No.1 came to the place where she was distributing pensions and took photo in his phone. Then she asked him as to why he was taking photos and he told her that on the next day, her photos will come in paper and she can see them and saying so, he went away. Again, at 7:30 hours on the same day, when she went to Gogula Jyothi's house and giving pension to Jyothi, A-1 asked Jyothi as why she was taking pension when he told her not to take pension and again, took photos of the de facto complainant. At that time, the brothers of the de facto complainant asked petitioner No.1 as to why he was again taking photos. Then, both the petitioners hold the shirts of her brothers and beat her younger brother on chest and threw him on the ground and pressed the throat of her elder brother and threw him on the ground and beat him with hands and legs and abused them by saying "Madigollaku udyogaliste ilage chestaru" and obstructed her from distributing the pension. Then, other villagers have come to her rescue and stopped them. Basing on her complaint, the police have registered the above crime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the de facto complainant, being a Village Volunteer, was distributing the pensions without following the Lock Down norms and there is a formation of several people and the petitioners requested them not to do that and to follow the guidelines of the lock down. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the de facto complainant, being a Village Volunteer, was distributing the pensions without following the Lock Down norms and there is a formation of several people and the petitioners requested them not to do that and to follow the guidelines of the lock down. Annoyed with the same, the de facto complainant filed the above complaint. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State submits that one of the allegations against the petitioners is that they abused the de facto complainant in the name of caste and it will attract Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Once the allegations attract the relevant provisions of the Act, the anticipatory bail application itself is not maintainable and sought to dismiss this application. 6. A perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioners have abused the de facto complainant saying that "Madigollaku udyogaliste ilage chestaru", which clearly attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 7. Section 3 (1)(s) of SC ST Act reads thus: 3. Punishments for offences atrocities:- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view; 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India dated 10.02.2020 observed that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C shall not apply to the cases under SC ST Act. Howsoever, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of provisions of SC ST Act, the bar created under Section 18 and 18 (a) (i) of SC ST Act shall not apply. The allegations made in the present complaint clearly attract Section 3 (1)(s) of SC ST Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that the police may be directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 = 2014 (3) ACR 2670 (SC) . 9. Hence, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that the police may be directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 = 2014 (3) ACR 2670 (SC) . 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the police are directed to follow the guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.