ORDER: 1. This criminal petition under section 438 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioners/accused to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.113 of 2023 of Macherla Rural Police Station of Palnadu District for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 364, 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent/State. On 02.01.2024, respondent agreed to take out notices to de facto complainant. None entered appearance for de facto complainant. 3. For petitioner, it is argued • Petitioner is innocent and did not participate in the alleged crime incident. • Facts do not make out a case for applying any of the penal provisions alleged. • In terms of law laid down by the courts application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. For respondents, it is argued • Since it is a case of caste atrocity, the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 4. Perused the record. 5. As one could notice the offences alleged are both under IPC, 1860 as well as SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The application moved is under section 438 of the CrPC seeking bail in anticipation. Since it is a case of an alleged atrocity, one shall notice the interdict contained in Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which read as below. 18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act,- Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act 18A(1)……. 18A(2): - The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court. 6. A plain reading of the above provisions may make one to think that an application for an anticipatory bail may not be even registered for the purpose of hearing. 18A(2): - The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court. 6. A plain reading of the above provisions may make one to think that an application for an anticipatory bail may not be even registered for the purpose of hearing. However, it was also ruled that registering a petition is purely administrative in nature and the applicability or otherwise of interdict of law such as section 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989 require judicial application of mind and judicial standards and therefore such applications are to be registered and be placed for hearing vide P.Surendran V. State, (2019) 9 SCC 154 . 7. A reading of section 18 of the Act, 1989 makes it visible that the bar contained therein applies only when the accusation indicates commission of an offence under the Act, 1989. Therefore, it is always incumbent upon the court to find out from the record whether the acts alleged against the petitioner do prima facie indicate involvement of that accused for an offence under the Act, 1989. However, if no prima facie offence is made out from the allegations made in the FIR, the bar created by sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989 shall not apply and such an anticipatory bail application need to be considered in terms of section 438 CrPC vide Prathvi Raj Chauhan V. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 8. Case diary indicates that the alleged crime incident occurred on 21.12.2023. By then, this petitioner was leader of TDP for Macherla Assembly constituency. The allegations are that the de facto complainant and her family members were travelling in auto rickshaw bearing No.AP07TD6843 near quarry area in the outskirts of Kambampadu Village. There was a convoy of five vehicles going on the road and that convoy belonged to the preset petitioner. The specific allegation mentioned in the FIR is that a white colour Safari car bearing No.AP07CU4646 was driven by its driver at high speed, negligently and dashed the auto rickshaw and consequently, the de facto complainant and her family members sustained various injuries and the auto rickshaw in which they were travelling turned turtle. The specific allegation mentioned in the FIR is that a white colour Safari car bearing No.AP07CU4646 was driven by its driver at high speed, negligently and dashed the auto rickshaw and consequently, the de facto complainant and her family members sustained various injuries and the auto rickshaw in which they were travelling turned turtle. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that the convoy stopped at a distance and the people therein got down and the petitioner herein came and enquired with the people who sustained injuries and asked them to which village they belonged to. Then the de facto complainant/ the woman disclosed her name and her village and disclosed that she belonged to Yerukula Caste. It is then, the allegations are that, the petitioner and people who were accompanying him abused her by caste name. Thereafter, there is specific mention in the FIR that this petitioner pacified his followers and took the injured into one of the vehicles in his convoy to take them to hospital. Then it is specifically mentioned that without being noticed by others in the vehicles, the son of the de facto complainant made a telephone call to his relatives and their relatives came and stopped the convoy in which the injured were travelling and took the injured to hospital. 9. The submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner are that it is a politically motivated case and the petitioner and his people on noticing the accident intended to help the victims by securing another auto rickshaw in which they were taken to hospital. However, by her political motives, this false case is foisted. The specific contention is that the vehicle that allegedly caused the accident is a vehicle that is falsely implicated and that vehicle never got involved in this incident. The photograph of the vehicle is annexed to the bail application to show that there was no point of contact for this vehicle to indicate that it could have collided with any other vehicle. A memo dated 09.01.2024 filed by prosecution is available on record. It shows Mahindra Scorpio Black in colour bearing registration No.TS07HR6060 with front part of the vehicle in damaged condition. According to prosecution, it is that vehicle which caused the incident. Thus, the vehicle that is now stated to have caused the accident is not the vehicle that is mentioned in the FIR lodged by the victim. It shows Mahindra Scorpio Black in colour bearing registration No.TS07HR6060 with front part of the vehicle in damaged condition. According to prosecution, it is that vehicle which caused the incident. Thus, the vehicle that is now stated to have caused the accident is not the vehicle that is mentioned in the FIR lodged by the victim. Thus, there is any amount of ambiguity and confusion seen from the record. Moreover, it is not the case of prosecution that this petitioner was driving any of the vehicles involved in this accident. 10. Even as could be seen from the averments of the FIR of the victim, she and other victims were rescued by the petitioner and he arranged for their transportation to hospital. That shows the concern of the petitioner and obedience to law. 11. As could be seen from the averments in the FIR, the victims went to attend Semi-Christmas celebrations and during their return, this accident occurred. The averments in the FIR would themselves show that the victims and the petitioner are strangers to one another. Thus, the caste name of the victims was not known to the petitioner. When the petitioner was enquiring about the victims, then the de facto complainant herself not only disclosed her name and place of residence but also disclosed her caste name. Till then, everything was only an accident case. It is not known why she disclosed her caste name though none asked it. However, it is only after she disclosed her caste name, she was allegedly abused by her caste name. That the allegations made appear very artificial making one to think that these allegations prima facie do not disclose an offence of caste atrocity. 12. The occupation and permanent residence of the petitioner are not denied by the prosecution. Looking at the conduct of the petitioner at the relevant time of the alleged offence, one would notice his inclination to oblige legal process. In such circumstances, this court finds that any custodial interrogation does not seem necessary. Hence prayer is granted. 13. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner/accused, he shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concerned. Hence prayer is granted. 13. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner/accused, he shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concerned. He shall mark his attendance before the investigating police on 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 AM and 1.00 PM for three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall make himself available for investigation by a police officer as and when required, and he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. He shall not indulge in similar acts of crime. He must participate in the legal process as required under law.