ORDER : T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J. 1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed on behalf of the petitioners/A2 to A4 herein to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 127 of 2024 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioners herein and others for the offence punishable under Section 363, 364-A, 232 and 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. 3. The Prosecution's case, in brief is that the complainant Epuru Sunitha is a resident of Epuru Village. She came to his brother's house on 11.02.2024 to look-after the baby of her brother and stayed at his house. On the same day at about 5.00 PM, four male persons came to the house, while her brother Kolikapudi Nagendra Babu was in the house and they discussed with her brother that they want to come out for discussion. When she asked her brother as to whom they are, then he narrated that he took money from Muni of Hyderabad, he contacted him so many times for his money, he did not lift the phone. Muni may sent the said persons. Out of them, Al due to fear, her brother rejected to accompany with them, they forcibly took her brother in a car, when, she contacted her brother, but, he did not answer. On 12-02-2024, her brother contacted her with his mobile number and narrated that he want cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- through one Gundimeda Siva Kumar and was handed to them at 2.30pm, when she contacted her brother, he did not answer. On 12.02.2024 at 8.05pm, her brother contacted her and requested Rs. 3,00,000/- Since then, her brother did not return back to house, then, she came to police station and presented a written report to take necessary action against the Al and three others, who committed kidnap of her brother from the house on 13.02.2024. Based on the same, police registered the report as a case in Cr.No.127/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 323 and 342 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. During the course of investigation, police arrested the Al on 16.02.2024 and send to judicial custody. 4. Based on the same, police registered the report as a case in Cr.No.127/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 323 and 342 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. During the course of investigation, police arrested the Al on 16.02.2024 and send to judicial custody. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners/A2 to A4 have been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A2 to A4 further contended that basing on the confession of A1, the case came to be registered against the petitioners/A2 to A4 and the petitioners are no where concerned with the commission of the offence and they are apprehending arrest in the hands of the police, as such prays to enlarge the petitioners/A2 to A4 on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor confirms non-filing of charge sheet by the police and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioners have no previous antecedents. He further submitted that the investigation is at crucial stage. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that notice given to the defacto complainant under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition as well as in the report. 7. It is settled law that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the accusation's nature and gravity and the accused's exact role must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. If there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the Prosecution, the ordinary course of events is that the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case. 8. This Court views the power to authorize detention as a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. 8. This Court views the power to authorize detention as a very solemn function. It affects the liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised with great care and caution. The attitude of arresting first and then proceeding with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool for police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motives. 9. The law presumes an accused to be innocent until his guilt is proven. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right of liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relied on decision in Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and another 2018 INSC 248 : (2018)6 SCC 454 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 79.2 There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D. Suthar v. State of Gujarat (1992) 1 Guj LR 405 and N.T. Desai v. State of Gujarat (1997)2Guj LR 942 and clarify the judgments of this Court in State of M.P. v Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 439 and Manju Devi v. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia (2017) 13 SCC 439 : (2017)4 SCC (Cri)662. 11. Now, it is required to be seen whether anticipatory bail application is maintainable in view of the bar contained in section 18 of the SC/ST Act. 12. It is useful to reproduce section 18 of the SCs/STs Act, which reads as under: 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." 13. 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." 13. A reading of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act makes it clear that merely because a person who does not belong to a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, the offence under section 3(2)(v) would not get attracted. Section 3(2)(v) was amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016 which came into effect on 26th January 2016. The words "......... on the ground that" under section 3(2)(v) have been substituted with "........ Knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe". Thus, subsequent to the amendment sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is an offence must be committed by a person who does not belong to a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe with the knowledge that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of averment to that effect, the offence under section 3(2)(v) would not get attracted 14. In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the decision in Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2019 INSC 965, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: In a case for applicability of Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: 15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The Court held as under: 15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to "Khangar" - Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in between Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, wherein it held that: 9. We have gone through the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix/complainant as extracted in the judgments of the High Court as well as that of the trial Court. The case as projected in the FIR and the sworn testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that the prosecutrix/complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/complainant was doing the household chores. Apparently thus, even from the highest allegations of the prosecutrix, the offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. This issue was dealt with by this Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra 2000(3) SCC 577 wherein it was held as below:- "9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside." (Emphasis supplied) 16. As seen from the record, the contentions of the petitioners that except confessional statement of Al, no other independent material has been collected to show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 are not attract to the facts of the case as such there are no such accusations made against any of the accused person. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC do not attract to the facts of the case. This Court has disposed the bail application of the Al in Criminal Petition No. 2339 of 2024, wherein this Court has considered that the accusation against the Al and other accused is that to collect the balance amount, Al kidnapped LW.4 and confined him and made phone calls to his relatives. Section 364-A IPC deals with kidnap for ransom. The allegations made against the petitioners do not prima-facie show that any ransom was demanded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 348 of IPC may apply to the facts of the case, if the accusation made against the petitioners on considered. Section 364-A IPC deals with kidnap for ransom. The allegations made against the petitioners do not prima-facie show that any ransom was demanded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 348 of IPC may apply to the facts of the case, if the accusation made against the petitioners on considered. After carefully reading of the Section 348 of IPC it appears that Section 348 of IPC applies to the facts of the case, as the victim was said to have confined with a view to recover the amount payable by him to Al. 17. After considering the material on record, at this stage, this Court views that it is doubtful as to whether Section 364-A IPC attracts to the facts of the case. The petitioners have got permanent abode at Nutakki, Guntur District as such there is no possibility of their fleeing away from justice. When ascertained the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that no antecedents have been reported against the petitioners according to his instructions. 18. After carefully considering the material, this Court is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 4. 19. As a result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 4 subject to their surrender before the Investigating Officer concerned within two (2) weeks from today. On such surrender, the Petitioners shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. Upon their release, the Petitioners are mandated to adhere to the following conditions: i. On such release, the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District, once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., for a period of two (02) months; and ii. The Petitioners/Accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer and shall cooperate with the investigating officer. 20. The Petitioners/Accused shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Investigating or Police Officer and shall cooperate with the investigating officer. 20. It is explicitly clarified that the observations made in this Order are preliminary and pertain solely to the decision on the present application without indicating a stance on the case's merits. The Investigating Agency is affirmed to have the freedom to investigate without being influenced by the observations in this Order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.