ORDER : V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J. 1. This criminal petition under section 438 of the CrPC is filed by the petitioner/A1 to grant anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.67 of 2024 of Chapadu Police Station of YSR Kadapa District for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard arguments of Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner/A1, Sri Venkat Challa, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. For petitioner, it is argued Petitioner is innocent and did not participate in the alleged crime incident. Out of political reasons, petitioner is implicated. 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 This petitioner is the leader and other accused are his followers. There is misuse of political power and the attempt was to harm the opposition. Since it is a case of caste atrocity the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 3. Perused the record. 4. For respondent No.1/State, a counter affidavit is filed. For respondent No.2/ de facto complainant also, a counter affidavit is filed. 5. learned counsel for petitioner cited: - 1. Prathvi Raj Chauhan V. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 2. Prabhat Kumar Mishra V. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 665 3. Bharat Chaudary V. State of Bihar, (2003) 8 SCC 77 4. Sheik Khasim Bi V. State, (1986) LawSuit (AP) 14 5. Vilas Pandurang Pawar V. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795 6. For respondents, Union of India V. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/1351/2019 is cited. 7. 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. 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. 8. 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 . 9. The present application was filed during summer vacation in the month of May, 2024. After due hearing, by an order dated 30.05.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, interim protection was granted. That was continued from time to time on applications being made in that regard. A reading of the 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’s case (mentioned supra). 10. 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’s case (mentioned supra). 10. It is stated by both sides that the investigation in this case was completed and a charge sheet was filed before the competent special court and the same is yet to be considered by the special court. In Bharat Chaudary’s case (mentioned supra) and Sheik Khasim Bi’s case (mentioned supra), it was ruled that presentation of a charge sheet by itself is no hindrance to consider an application for anticipatory bail. It is in the backdrop of these principles of law, the facts on record require consideration. As could be seen from the case diary, the crime incident occurred on 13.05.2024 at about 07:40 AM in Chinna Guravalur Village of Chapadu Mandal. The place of incident is polling booth. It was on 13.05.2024 in the State of Andhra Pradesh, democratic elections were held for the state assembly as well as parliament and people were queuing up to cast their votes. As per the case diary, the present offence arose out of political ill feelings. 11. The petitioner is aged 78 years. By the date of elections, he was the sitting MLA belonging to the then ruling political party. The victims on their own showing belonged to the then opposition party and they were at polling booth as agents. 12. The allegations are that this petitioner/A1 accompanied by about 100 other people (named and unnamed), reached the polling booth. The specific statement of the de facto complainant is that in the presence of this petitioner/A1, the other named accused abused him and his brother by caste name and questioned their courage to stand against them and attacked them with knives, iron rods, sticks and indiscriminately bet the de facto complainant and his brother and caused injuries and that resulted in both the victims falling down on the ground unconscious. In the counter affidavit filed for the State, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mydukur of YSR Kadapa District mentioned that they had verified the electronic evidence and analyzed it and found that this petitioner/A1 was seen going into PS.No.167 (Polling Station) and was seen talking to the other accused and the other accused proceeded to P.S.No.168 and there they attacked the de facto complainant and his brother after dragging them out of PS.No.168. 13. The facts narrated above show that even according to the averments made in the written information lodged by the victim, this petitioner by himself did not hold any weapon and did not attack anyone. It is also clear that he was not stated to have even uttered a word against anyone. It also shows that he by himself did not abuse either or both the victims by their caste name. What all that was alleged in the written information was that in his presence, the other accused did these criminal acts. Thus, his presence alone was there. It is alleged that the other accused involved in this incident are his followers. Thus, actus reus for any of the alleged offences is not seen against A1/the petitioner herein. Even to consider the facts that others did all the criminal acts in his presence, the statement in the counter affidavit shows that this petitioner was seen proceeding towards P.S.No.167 whereas the incident occurred at P.S.No.168. Only thing that is attributed is that just before the subject incident, he was seen talking to other accused. 14. in the above referred circumstances, it cannot be said that the acts alleged against the present petitioner would amount to committing an offence of caste atrocity. In such circumstances, it is permissible under law to consider his application for bail in anticipation. 15. The fact that the petitioner is aged 78 years and the fact that he earlier was an MLA on four occasions and by the date of the crime incident, he was the sitting MLA and the fact that he is a permanent resident of the address that is shown in the record being not in dispute, it is not a case of flight risk. In view of the fact that the entire investigation is completed and charge sheet was also filed makes it clear that necessary evidence was collected and the material was placed before the court competent to deal with it. These aspects render any custodial interrogation unnecessary. Therefore, this court finds justification in the prayer made by the petitioner. Hence, prayer is granted. 16. It shall be recorded that the facts appreciated here and the reasons mentioned here are for the purpose of consideration of the matter at the stage of bail hearing and they shall have no bearing on the proceedings that are pending before the court below. The learned trial court is obliged to follow the law and proceed in accordance with it independently without being influenced by what this order indicates. 17. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner/A1, he shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concerned. He shall not indulge in similar acts of crime. He must participate in the legal process as required under law.