K. SRINIVASA @ SIVASWAMY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused with others, if any, in Crime No.149 of 2018 on the file of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District. The crime is registered on 28.07.2018, from the report of the de facto complainant of even date, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 50634 Penal Code and Sections 3(l)(r)3 (2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act").

(2.) From the report of the de facto complainant by name Gaddam Israial, S/o. Subba Rao,

(3.) The petitioner is now seeking anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Crimial P.C., 1973 having filed the petition on 27.08.2018 with notice to the Public Prosecutor received by the Court on even date. The averments in the anticipatory bail application are that none of the ingredients of the penal provisions, for which the crime registered, are attracted and the registered Sale Deed No. 10029 of 2004 executed by the de facto complainant was on 212.2004 (13 l/2 years back) for valuable consideration. There Siva ksetham was developed by the petitioner to protect Hindu Dharma being a devotee to Hindu Dharma and to protect the cows and also providing nithya annadanam (daily feeding) and also running a Veda Patashala and initiated Viswa Dharma Parirakshana with social activities and the land along with other lands of him are using for all these purposes. It is contended that more than 131/2 years after the registered Sale deed supra for the first time rising the issue as if he went there to ask as if he was promised and the promises were not fulfilled, which are not even born by any record to give report and to register the crime without even proper reading and verification of the contents of the report by police, is outcome with dishonest intention and some ulterior motives with some one behind to the created false story including with the false allegation of the so-called second occurrence on the date of report of scolding by the followers of the petitioner by touching the caste. It is also averred that the de facto complainant is a Christian by religion also by his very name and he does not belong to the SC/ST community to attract the provisions of the Act even otherwise. It is further averred in addition to the facts touching the allegations supra of the petitioner previously expressed his protest against the appointment of TTD Chairman and on 16.07.2018 he tried to stage protest against Kathi Mahesh, who made comments on Lord Sri Rama. In view of the above two incidents, the present case it appears foisted by some one behind. It is also averred that he along with other Swamijis, Peethadhipates and devotees are intending to conduct Pada Yatra from Vijayawada to Tirupati. The petitioner's request for permission was rejected by the SDPO, Narasaraopet on 28.07.2018 on the ground that section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 is in force from 15.07.2018 to 15.08.2018. The petitioner now intends to commence the same. He is likely to be apprehended and attested by police to put him under great hardship and hence, to consider for grant of anticipatory bail as there is every apprehension of arrest to harass and malign him.