THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8198 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners/A-1 to A-12 are accused of offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the Act’) and Sections 323 and 506 (Part-II) IPC. It is alleged that there was quarrel between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant who belongs to Madiga caste and that the petitioners abused the de-facto complainant in the name of Madiga caste and that they also beat the de-facto complainant and others belonging to the same caste and that on the next day all the forward caste people of the village gathered and decided to boycott Madiga caste people, that they should not talk with Madiga people, that they announced fine of Rs.25,000/- together with five beatings with footwear in case Madiga caste people are entertained. It is further alleged that kirana shop people are not giving any essential commodities and that the villagers are not talking to them. Thus, as per the allegations in the report it is the case of social boycott of persons belonging to Madiga caste by persons belonging to forward class communities. Now the petitioners seek anticipatory bail herein. They approached this Court straight away without approaching the Special Court or the Sessions Court for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The senior counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS[1] of the Supreme Court and took me through the following paragraph therein: “In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27-5-2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” In this case there is clear mention of the fact that forward class caste people were indulging in acts of suppression and social boycott against persons belonging to Madiga caste. The social boycott is virtually alleged to be followed everywhere including in kirana shops and for engaging them in labour work. In my opinion, apart from Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, some other Penal provisions of the said Act and other enactments also are squarely applicable to the allegations made in the report. In that view of the matter, Section 18 of the Act is clear bar for this Court to entertain this anticipatory bail. After arguing the matter at length, the senior counsel requested the Court for permission to withdraw the petition, in case this Court is going to reject the bail application. His request is rejected. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 16, 2011 PN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8198 OF 2011 September 16, 2011 PN [1] (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531