JUDGMENT DK Sinha, J.- The petitioner Vijay Kumar Sharma apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhanwar P .S. Case No. 78 of 2010 for the alleged offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Wrevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. It was alleged in the written report of the informant Etwari Das, who put his thumb impression at the bottom therein that a well under Public Irrigation System was sanctioned to be dug out under "NREGA" scheme and the work was already over some 1.5 years ago. The informant had worked in such scheme as labourer and he had been visiting the Block Development Officer for payment of his wages. Ultimately, he was advised by the B.D.O. to contact the petitioner Vijay Kumar Sharma, who was the Junior Engineer in that scheme. On 6.4.2010 when he contacted the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 10,0001, was demanded by him to which the informant explained that he had already given Rs. 5,0001- (five thousand) whereupon the informant was abused by calling him in his caste name "Chamar" and was driven out saying that wages would not be given to him. From there, he went to the office of "MALE" and contacted one Binay Sonthalia and narrated the occurrence then Binay Santhalia went to the petitioner to enquire to which the petitioner had threatened him that he would be falsely implicated in any case. On the basis of the written report, the case was instituted. 3. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned Counsel, at the outset submitted that Section 18 of the Act bars Anticipatory Bail to an accused. However, in Virendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001 (1) J.H.R.C.R. 133 Rajasthan a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court propounded that application for Anticipatory Bail can be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of the Act of 1989 due to the facts of the case which will have to be gathered only from the F.I.R. and not beyond that because once it is gathered from the F.I.R. that the applicant 'is an accused of committing an offence laid down under Section 3 of the Act of 1989, that bar of Section 18 would instantly operate against the person, who has been made an accused of the offence under the Act of 1989. 4. In Rakesh Kumar and Anr. VS. 4. In Rakesh Kumar and Anr. VS. State of Bihar & Anr, reported in 2007(4) J.C.R. 61 (Jhr.), this Court observed,- "As regards the offence relating to the violation of the Clause (x) of Section 3 of the Act, it constitutes an offence only if the insult or intimidation was made to a member of the scheduled caste with intent to humiliate him in any public place within public view." 5. It was more clarified by observing,- "The provision of Clause (x) of Section 3 of the Act does not make any utterances within the purview of the penal offences. To constitute the penal offence, utterances must be shown to be made in any public place within the public view." 6. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned Counsel, submitted that the allegation as made in the written report by the informant even if are taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety, the contents of the . written report did not constitute the offence alleged under Section 3(1)(x) of the' Act. The written report did not disclose that the petitioner addressed him in his caste name using abusive language at any public place within the public view. The informant has not disclosed the place of occurrence and has not stated that the alleged occurrence took place within the public view or the witnesses. 7. Advancing his argument Mr. Murari submitted that as a matter of fact, the instant case is the counter blast of the earlier case instituted by the petitioner giving rise to Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 77 of 2010 first point in time against one Binay Sonthalia and two unknown persons. The accused Binay Sonthalia of the counter case had entered into the residential office of the petitioner Vijay Kumar Sharma, - while he was engaged in disposal of some official work, alongwith Jitendra Yadav, Rudaul Yadav and two unknown persons and started mounting pressure to make entry in the measurement book without the work actually being done and when this petitioner refused to accede to their demand, he was manhandled by them, who destroyed the Government papers, snatched his wristwatch and also removed Rs. 500/- from his pocket. The occurrence took place within the view of several witnesses, who interfered and saved the life of this petitioner. 500/- from his pocket. The occurrence took place within the view of several witnesses, who interfered and saved the life of this petitioner. The instant case of the informant has been planted by the accused of the counter case Binay Sonthalia and the informant had admitted that he had approached Binay Sonthalia though the petitioner being Junior Engineer was not the authority for making payment to any labourer under NREGA" scheme, therefore, in view of the above discussions, the learned counsel submitted that no offence is attracted for the alleged under Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C. & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and therefore, the Anticipatory Bail of the petitioner is maintainable and he deserves anticipatory bail therein. 8. Mr. Binod Singh, learned A.P.P. opposed the contention. 9. In the facts and circumstances, without touching the maintainability of the offence, as alleged against the petitioner, under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act, the petitioner Vijay Kumar Sharma, in the event of his arrest or surrender within 15 days of this order, is directed to be released on executing bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) with two sureties of like amount' each to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Giridih in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 78 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 781 of 2010 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bailers would be his near relatives.s