THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRI.P. No.4302 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.75 of 2000 of Khajipet Police Station, Cuddapah District, for the offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court cannot grant anticipatory bail when it is alleged that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under the provisions of the Act. The contents of the report filed by the de facto complainant show that she is a member of Scheduled Caste and that admittedly, the petitioner is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. It is alleged that the petitioner used to harass the de facto complainant and solicit illicit intimacy with her. He also alleged to have caught hold the hand of the victim. Basing on the report given by the victim, a case in Crime No.75 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. For one reason or the other, though the alleged offence took place on 18.07.2000, it is still pending. The only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the victim died and therefore, no proceedings can be continued against the petitioner. It may be a fact that the victim died after the date of the alleged offence. Merely because a victim or a witness died, the criminal proceedings cannot be closed. What is to be seen is, whether the oral or circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused or not cannot be decided in these proceedings. That can be decided only after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. It is also submitted that though charge sheet has been filed, in view of pendency of the quash proceedings, there is no further progress in the criminal case. Admittedly, no stay is granted by this Court. Merely pendency of quash proceedings will not come in the way of continuing further proceeding and trial. When there is no stay the trial can be commenced and even judgment can be pronounced. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary remedy of anticipatory bail. The trial Court, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, shall dispose of the case as early as possible. This order does not come in the way of petitioner seeking bail before the Special Judge and in his discretion the Special Judge may consider such application on the same day or as early as possible. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:19.05.2010. SJ