1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16 th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6958/2015 BETWEEN : 1. Allah Bakash @ Allaabakashi S/o Gouse Sab Aged about 34 years 2. Shahida Bhanu @ Shaidabanu W/o Salauddin Aged about 36 years 3. Sayed Nadeem @ Saddu S/o Syed Munaf Sab Aged about 22 years 4. Syed Idayath Ulla @ Idayath S/o Syed Mohammed Sab Aged about 34 years 5. Syed Inayath Ulla @ Inayath Sab S/o Syed Mahammed Sab Aged about 35 years 6. Mehaboob Basha @ Makhashu S/o Gouse Sab Aged about 32 years 2 All are r/o Dharmapur Village Hiriyur Taluk Chitradurga District-577501 ...PETITIONERS (By Sri.Bharath Kumar.V, Adv.) AND : State of Karnataka Through Abbinahole Police Station Hiriyur, Chitradurga Dist-577501 Represented by State Public Prosecutor Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560001 ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa,HCGP) This Crl.P. is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to release the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.112/2015 of Abbinahole P.S., Chitradurga for the offences P/U/Ss 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 354, 355, 506, 149 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act. This Crl.P. coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:- 3 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP. 2. Petitioners are apprehending arrest at the hands of respondent-police relating to Cr.No.112/15 on the file of Abbinahole police station, Chitradurga district, registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 354, 355, 506, 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. 3. Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that there is threshold bar to consider the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in view of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PoA), Act, 1989. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 4 2001 KAR 5483 (Chikkappa & others vs. State of Karnataka) , to contend that this Court can look into as to, whether prima facie case is made out or not. 5. On perusing the first information lodged in this case, it is seen that these petitioners abused the complainant with reference to her caste. In the light of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and another vs. State of Maharastra and another [(2012) 8 SCC 795) , this Court cannot exercise the discretion in view of the threshold bar found under Section 18 of the above Act. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, petitioners are at liberty to seek regular bail from the Sessions Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. after serving a copy of the bail application one day in advance to the prosecutor. In such an event, the learned Judge shall dispose of the matter without undue delay 5 preferably on the same day of taking up the application for consideration, in the light of the counter case being filed against the complainant and in the light of the offences being neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. Sd/- JUDGE Srl. .