ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J.— Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The facts are as follows : It is stated that on 11.8.2010, the complainant along with his brother and other labourers were at their field watering the same. Later it was found that accused No. 1 had obstructed water flow to their field and diverted the same into his field. The complainant and his brother therefore sought to remove the obstruction placed by accused No. 1, at which point of time, the accused Weilding deadly weapons attacked the complainant and his brother and abused them in foul language while referring to their caste, in a derogatory fashion; Accused No. 1 is said to have assaulted the complainant with club while accused No. 2 had assaulted with iron road and thereby caused injuries and hence, the complaint was lodged before the Kurugodu Police Station in Crime No. 133/10 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 504(2) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(ix) and (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. The Petitioner had approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail since he was arrayed as Accused No. 7 in the said complaint. The Sessions Court however has rejected the bail application said to have been filed accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 on the footing that there was a bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 and further since it was also under the mistaken impression that this Petitioner had approached this Court on the earlier occasion and the same had been rejected. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that insofar as the first reasoning of the Sessions Court namely, the bar under Section 18 has been interpreted to hold that unless the allegations are made with reference to the provisions of the said Act, the same would not be a bar for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the Sessions Court was in clear error in holding that the Petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the same was rejected It is further pointed out that in the complaint there is no allegation of overt-act against the present Petitioner and secondly the very identity of the Petitioner is in doubt as the complaint indicates the father's name of accused No. 7-as different from the actual name of the father of the Petitioner, Therefore, would seek anticipatory bail in such terms as this Court may impose. 4. The State has filed statement of objections merely to reiterate that there is a bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. As already stated and as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would apply in the event there was a clear allegation against the Petitioner insofar as the provisions of the said Act are concerned. Therefore, ends of justice would require that the Petitioner be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest subject to the following conditions : (a) The Petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with a solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court; (b) The Petitioner shall not influence or threaten the prosecution witnesses and shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for purposes of investigation; (c) The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court without the leave of that Court. 6. The Petitioner shall approach the Sessions Court for regular bail within a period of eight weeks and on such an application being filed, the Sessions Court shall consider the same without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 7. With these conditions the petition is accepted and disposed of in terms as above.