Judgment:
HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1160 of 2014 11-02-2014 S.Venkatda Lakshmamma ....Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, SHO Police Station, Yellanuru, Anantapur Dist, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr.G.Seena Kumar Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad : : ?.Cases referred: THE HON'BLE Sr.JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1160 OF2014ORDER
: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
Earlier to the present report, the petitioner gave a report to the police which reads as follows:- The marriage of the petitioner's daughter was performed on 3- 11-2012.
There is a custom in the village, according to which, the persons belonging to Madiga community used to beat the drums at the time of marriage on receiving some amount from the bride's parents.
The petitioner purchased four drums and gave them to Madiga people for the purpose of beating them at the time of marriage of her daughter and she also gave some amount to them.
But, the Madiga people namely (1) Gangaraju, (2) Madiga Peddanna, (3) Madiga Venkatappa and (4) Madiga Chinna Naganna, did not beat the drums as per the custom.
According to the petitioner, they insulted her family members at the time of her daughter's marriage at the instance of their opponents in the village.
According to the petitioner, her relatives gave warning to Madiga people not to beat drums at the time of the marriage of petitioner's daughter and if they do so, they would be sent out of the village and on that there was a dispute between the petitioner's family and her opponents in the village.
The version of the petitioner is that owing to the said dispute, the following persons namely (1) Akuthota Obula Reddy, (2) Matka Sriramam Jalaja Reddy, (3) Pandirlapalli Bramhananda Reddy, (4) Peddi Ramam Jalaja Reddy, (5) Prasada Reddy, (6) Prabhakara Reddy, (7) Obula Reddy and (8) Kuruba Sathya, trespassed into their house while the petitioner's husband was having meal and assaulted him and also \threw boulders at him, due to which, he received a bleeding injury on his leg.
Basing on the report, the police registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2013 of Yellanur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections, 147, 148, 323, 427, 506 and 149 of I.P.C., and the said case is now pending.
The version of the petitioner is that as she lodged a report against the aforesaid persons, they set up the de facto complainant in the present case and got filed the report with false allegations.
As per the report in the present case, on 6-12-2013 while the de facto complainant and others were beating drums in connection with another marriage in the village, the petitioner and her husband obstructed them and took away the drums from their hands on the ground that they did not beat the drums at the marriage of their daughter and also stating that the drums were purchased by the husband of the petitioner and so saying, she took away the drums into her house.
On the next day morning the de facto complainant and others went to the house of the petitioner and asked her to return the druMs.but she refused to return them on the ground that they did not beat the drums at the marriage of their daughter as per the custom.
Basing on the aforesaid allegations, a case in Crime No.106 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered in Yellanur Police Station.
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime No.106 of 2013.
Though it is mentioned in the FiRs.Information Report that the petitioner abused the de facto complainant and others in their caste name, the said utterances were not made with a view to insult or humiliate the de facto complainant and others in a place within public view.
The essential ingredient of the offence is, causing intentional insult or intimidation, which is absent in the present case.
The version of the petitioner is that she was obviously implicated in the instant case at the instance of their opponents by setting up the de facto complainant for the purpose of lodging the FiRs.Information Report in the present case is quite probable.
More over the entire allegations mentioned in the FiRs.Information Report and also in the earlier FiRs.Information Report in Crime No.105 of 2013 obviously indicate that a dispute arose between the petitioner and de facto complainant and his men on the issue that the de facto complainant and his men even after taking money from the petitioner, failed to beat the drums as per the custom in the village in connection with the marriage of the petitioner's daughter.
Though Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 enacts a bar against granting anticipatory bail if an offence is committed under any of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, in the instant case, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
Each and every dispute in respect of every Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe member with non schedule caste or non schedule tribe member, cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
The said provision is attracted only if mens rea for commission of the offence under the said Act exists.
In the present case, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are not attracted and therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 18 of the Act.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
The petitioner is therefore, directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, Yellanur Police Station, Anantapur District, within 30 days from today and thereafter she shall be released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer.
_________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 11-02-2014