1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 2 in Crime No. 66 of 2026 of Vemulawada Rural Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 296(b) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST Act”).

3. Heard Mr. P. Padma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a dispute arose in relation to the establishment of an Electricity Sub-Station over certain land situated within the limits of Nookalamarri Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that, in the course of the said dispute, the petitioner intentionally abused the de facto complainant and another person by referring to their caste names in a derogatory manner and attempted to assault them. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the aggrieved persons, the present crime came to be registered for offences punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present complaint is nothing but a counterblast to Crime No.67 of 2026, which had earlier been registered on the complaint lodged by the petitioner's family members against the de facto complainant and others. It is contended that the genesis of the dispute is essentially civil in nature, arising out of a long-standing land dispute, which is also the subject matter of pending civil proceedings between the parties.

               5.2. According to the petitioner, the allegations made in the present First Information Report are false, motivated and have been engineered with an oblique intention to harass and humiliate her. It is submitted that there exists a serious dispute regarding the identification and localisation of the land proposed for establishment of the Electricity Sub-Station and that the authorities, without adhering to due process of law, attempted to enter upon the petitioner's land and damaged the standing crop raised therein.

               5.3. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had instituted a suit seeking perpetual injunction before the competent Civil Court and that an order of temporary injunction has been granted in her favour, which continues to remain in force as on date. In such circumstances, it is contended that the present criminal proceedings have been initiated solely to neutralise the effect of the earlier criminal case and to overcome the subsisting interim protection granted by the Civil Court.

               5.4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a housewife, having no criminal antecedents, and is a permanent resident of the locality. It is argued that there is no likelihood of her absconding, tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses. Learned counsel would contend that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the purposes of investigation and that she is willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Lastly, it is submitted that arrest of the petitioner would cause irreparable injury to her reputation, social standing and family life. Accordingly, it is prayed that the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail be granted.

6.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are specific and serious in nature and that the investigation is still in progress. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that the temporary injunction granted by the Civil Court itself records that the activities pertaining to the Electricity Sub-Station may continue in the survey number identified in the police report and that the property claimed by the petitioner is situated in a different survey number. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the pendency of civil proceedings does not dilute the criminal allegations made in the complaint.

               6.2. It is further contended that the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of offences punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST Act and, in view of the statutory embargo contained under Sections 18 and 18-A of the said SC/ST Act, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.

8. The police report discloses that a meeting was convened on 23.04.2026 at about 12.00 Noon in Nookalamarri Gram Panchayat in connection with the establishment of a new Electricity Sub-Station in assigned land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas situated in Survey No.392/2/1 of the village. It is alleged that, after completion of the meeting, the de facto complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, along with certain local leaders, committee members and villagers, proceeded to inspect the proposed site. At that juncture, the petitioner and other accused persons allegedly objected to their presence and abused the complainant and others in filthy language by intentionally referring to their caste names.

9. The complaint specifically attributes an overt act to the petitioner, namely, that she intentionally addressed the de facto complainant by his caste name in a derogatory manner and attempted to assault him with a slipper. It is further alleged that the other accused abused another person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community by making caste-related remarks in the presence of villagers, thereby intentionally humiliating and insulting them in public view.

10. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the present crime is a retaliatory measure and a counterblast to Crime No.67 of 2026, which had earlier been registered at the instance of the petitioner's family members, and that the dispute essentially pertains to civil rights over immovable property. However, the mere existence of prior disputes, pendency of civil proceedings or institution of earlier criminal cases by either party cannot, by themselves, constitute a ground to discard the allegations made in the present complaint at the threshold. Whether the complaint is actuated by mala fides, whether it is motivated by previous enmity, or whether it amounts to a retaliatory prosecution are all matters requiring a thorough investigation and appreciation of evidence during the course of trial and cannot ordinarily be conclusively determined while considering an application seeking anticipatory bail.

11. At this stage, the allegations contained in the complaint are required to be examined only to ascertain whether they prima facie disclose the commission of offences under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. A careful reading of the complaint reveals specific allegations that the petitioner intentionally insulted and humiliated the de facto complainant by taking his caste name in a public place and attempted to assault him. Such allegations, if accepted at their face value, prima facie attract the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and other allied provisions of the SC/ST Act, as the case may be.

12. Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act expressly exclude the applicability of Section 482 of the BNSS,(corresponding to erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) in cases where a prima facie offence under the Act is disclosed. The legislative intent underlying these provisions is to afford enhanced protection to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes against atrocities and caste-based discrimination.

13. The constitutional validity of Sections 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, wherein it was categorically held that the bar against anticipatory bail would operate where the allegations in the complaint disclose a prima facie case under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The Court, however, clarified that where no prima facie case is made out on the face of the complaint, the Courts are not precluded from examining the matter and granting appropriate relief.

14. Reference may also be made to Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 795, wherein the Supreme Court held that while considering a prayer for anticipatory bail in offences under the SC/ST Act, the Court is required to ascertain only whether the complaint prima facie discloses the commission of an offence under the SC/ST Act and is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact.

15. In the instant case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are specific, definite and attribute a distinct overt act to her. The complaint alleges intentional caste-based abuse directed against the de facto complainant in the presence of villagers and an attempt to assault him with a slipper. At this stage, this Court is not expected to embark upon an inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations, nor to evaluate the probable defence sought to be projected by the petitioner. Since the averments contained in the complaint prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under the Act, the statutory embargo engrafted under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act stands attracted. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner by granting the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.