RAJULAPATI ANKABABU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to grant pre-arrest bail in Crime No.62 of 2016 on the file of the Station House Officer, Maredimilli Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 506 , 385 , 354-A of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (hereinafter after referred to as, the SC/ ST Act ).

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that prior to October, 2016, some people came to Chinthakoyya Village of Y.Ramavaram Mandal and enquired the villagers about availability of antique gold coins. In that process, they also enquired de facto complainant for antique gold coins for which he pleaded ignorance. While so, on 03.10.2016, accused No.1, who is a Police Constable, came to the house of de facto complainant, forcibly took Rs.40,000/- kept in the house and also took him to Maredimilli Police Station. At that time, accused Nos.3 and 4 came to the Police Station and demanded de facto complainant for antique gold coins and if he did not give them, accused No.4 will lodge a complaint with the petitioner, who is the Inspector of Police, as if he has given Rs.4,00,000/- to de facto complainant for procuring antique gold coins. According to de facto complainant, accused No.4 never came to their village. On the next day, accused No.3 came to the house of de facto complainant and demanded an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- for not registering a case against him, besides sending wife of de facto complainant to satisfy his lust. On 05.10.2016, de facto complainant gave Rs.2,00,000/-, which was drawn from Andhra Bank account of his mother-in-law, to accused No.3, who in turn gave it to the petitioner. The petitioner threatened de facto complainant not to disclose the same to anybody otherwise he will be implicated in a case under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act . It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused persons did the above acts knowing fully well that de facto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submitted that the de facto complainant filed a false complaint against the petitioner, who is an Inspector of Police, for the reasons best known him. He further submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are ex facie taken to be true and correct, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences more particularly under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ ST Act ; therefore, it is a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, has to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., even though offence is registered under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ ST Act , in view of Sub- section (2) of Section 4 of Cr.P.C. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that all the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are bailable; therefore, the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. He further submitted that Section 438 of Cr.P.C., has no application to the offences committed under the provisions of the SC/ ST Act , in view of Section 18 of the SC/ ST Act .