MAVURAM PAPI REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "Code" in short.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that the petitioner is falsely implicated in Cr.No.153/2002 on the file of Choppadandi Police Station, Karimnagar District for offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs and STs. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in short referred to as "Act" hereinafter, for which the police are trying to arrest him. It is further stated that the petitioner never abused the complainant or any other person by caste name in public view of in any other place and it is only a concocted and fabricated case against the petitioner by his opponents by invoking the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that even if the allegations are taken into consideration, no case is made out under the said Act and hence the provisions of Section 438 of the Code can be invoked. It is further stated that as per the complaint, elders from the village of de facto complainant i.e., Velma Malla Reddy, Ex.M.P.P.N. Malleshwari, M.P.P., Upa Sarpanch Anjaiah, Srinivas Reddy and 30 others came to Revelli village and at the relevant time it is stated that the petitioner, Ramana Reddy, Raji Reddy and Raju abused him, which cannot be believed as the petitioner cannot abuse and beat the de facto complainant and others when they are 30 in number. It is further stated that the alleged crime is said to have occurred on 30-9-2002 and had been reported on 3-10-2002 after four days of the occurrence. No doubt, certain other allegations also had been made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the petition. It was also stated that the petitioner is aged suffering with Blood Pressure and Heart problem and if he is arrested and kept in jail, his health will further deteriorate and he may even collapse.

(3.) Sri Rajasekhar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken me through the contents of the First Information Report and had contended that the allegations do not attract Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and hence the bar imposed by Section 18 of the Act cannot be made applicable to the present case. The learned Counsel further contended that while deciding an application for grant of bail under Section 438 of the Code, the Court can definitely appreciate whether the provisions of the Act are attracted while deciding whether the power imposed under Section 18 of the Act can be applied to a particular case or not. The learned Counsel also had further elaborately argued about the powers of this Court both under Section 482 and under Section 438 of the Code. The learned Counsel further contended that in a case while deciding an application for grant of bail under Section 438 of the Code, the Court may examine whether prima facie the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR constitute an offence at all under the provisions of the Act and if the Court is satisfied prima facie that the provisions of the Act are not attracted, then definitely this Court can exercise the jurisdiction in enlarging the petitioner on bail under Section 438 of the Code. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka, 1998 Crl. LJ 53, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai v. Union of India, 2000 (5) ALD 566, Potluri Poorna Chandra Prabhakara Rao v. State of A.P., 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 834 (AP), and Ramesh Prasad Bhanja v. State of Orissa, 1996 Crl.LJ 2743.