ADISESHAN NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the Respondent for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 324, 323, 447 and 427, I.P.C. read with Section 3(i)(10) of S.C. and ST. Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The alleged occurrence is 7.12.1994. Date of complaint is 30.8.1996. The case of the complaint who belongs to S.C. Community is that the Respondent moved down the Eucalyptus saplings cultivated by her and when she questioned, the first Petitioner called her by caste name and intimidated and humiliated her.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited two authorities before me. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner though Section 18 of S.C. & S.T. Act is a bar for grant of anticipatory bail still if a clear reading of the complaint and other statement does not reveal the case under Section 3(1)(10) of the Act, anticipatory bail can be granted.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the occurrence is alleged to have happened on 7.12.1994, complaint had not been immediately preferred. But the complaint was preferred only on 30.8.1996, after a lapse of about one year and four months. This is a feigned complaint. I see reason in the submissions of the learned Counsel. I am inclined to grant bail to Petitioners 2,3, and 4.