Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners are accused in a case under sections 144, 175, 146, 147, 149, 341, 447, 332, 333, 353, 307, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of S.C. & ST. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. An objection is being taken on behalf of the State that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the bar of Sec.18 of the S.C. & ST. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. So far as Sec. 4 of the said Act is concerned it only applies when the accused is a public servant which admittedly the petitioners are not. So far as Sec.3 of the Act is concerned it appears that the petitioners under the banner of Prakhand Yuva Sangharsh Sammittee, Katihar had been agitating for sometime in front of the Block Office with respect to the 10-points demands and in course of the said protest the said occurrence had taken place. The Circle Officer who has filed the written report claims that the petitioners and other persons present in the mob had entered into the Block Office and had broken the doors and damaged the records therein and further the allegation had been made that when he tried to prevent them he was abused by his caste name and thereafter beaten up. The said allegations do not prima facie show the applicability of the provisions of the S.C. and ST. Act and thus bar under Sec.18 of the said Act cannot come into operation. In the case of Mahesh Prasad Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2005(3) PUR 744 this Court has held that it is well settled by judicial pronouncements that the Court must be per se satisfied that prima facie allegations against the petitioner are made out under the provisions of the said Act before the bar of Sec.18 can operate regarding filing of the anticipatory bail application. Hence, in view of the said established proposition of law this anticipatory bail application is maintainable. 4. Hence, in view of the said established proposition of law this anticipatory bail application is maintainable. 4. On the merit it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had not themselves become violent rather it is evident from Annexure-2 that they were merely participating in a Fast unto death Programme and it is the administration which tried to break the fast unto death as a result of which certain scuffle had taken place. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a similarly situated person although he was not originally mentioned in the F.I.R. but later on, on the basis of the further statements of the witnesses, had been included as an accused, this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 18798/06: Shrawan Kumar Sharaff alias Sharwan Kumar Srrf vs. The State of Bihar by order dated 17.5.2006 had directed the release of the said petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioners. 1. Lalit Kumar, 2. Kishor Kumar Dutta, 3. Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, 4. Manoj Kumar Raut and 5. Nitesh Kumar Mishra, in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within six weeks from today, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 7,000.00 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Katihar, in Amdabad PS. Case No. 12/06 subject to the conditions as laid down under Sec. 438(2) of Cr.PC.