ORAL ORDER : S.H. VORA, J. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R. No. I-0074 of 2017 registered with Limbdi Police Station, Surendranagar. 2. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicants, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers. 5. Considering the submissions made at bar and the principle laid down in the decision rendered in case of Hareshbhai Dhirubhai Danger v. State of Gujarat, Somabhai Jivabhai Vala reported in 2017 (3) GLR 1919 , no doubt, Section-18 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act creates bar for invoking Section-438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon careful examination of averments made in the complaint and injured person's statement before concerned Doctor, who issued certificate on 19.09.2017, it becomes evidently clear that the complainant has attributed role of beating to all the applicants, whereas before the Doctor, complainant has attributed role only to the applicant no. 1. Such exaggeration as to beating by other applicants other than applicant no.1 makes the version of the complainant doubtful and prima-facie unbelievable and therefore, bar created under Section-18 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not come into play looking to the conduct of the complainant. The injured person is discharged from hospital and no injury is inflicted on the vital part of the body as per certificate dated 19.09.2017 Looking to the nature of allegations made in the FIR and the certificate issued by Doctor, it is clear that the applicants are even otherwise entitled to get regular bail and therefore, there is no impediment in granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , present application deserves consideration. 6. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , present application deserves consideration. 6. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicants herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered as C.R. No. I-0074 of 2017 registered with Limbdi Police Station, Surendranagar, the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that the applicants shall : (a) cooperate with the investigation and make available for interrogation whenever required; (b) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (c) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (d) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (e) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits; (f) not enter into the local limits of Limbdi Taluka for a period of three months; 7. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants. The applicants shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 8. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail. 9. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.