ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the offences alleged against the appellants are bailable except allegation of offence punishable under SC/ST (POA) Act. As per Section 3 (1) (r) and (s) it is a condition precedent that intentional insult or intimidation and abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste should take place within public view. 2. In the instant matter, neither there is an evidence as to what words were actually used to abuse or intimidate the victim, nor there is evidence that such words were used in public view therefore, no charge for an offence under Section 3(1) (r) and (s) are made out. Rest of the case of the prosecution is pertaining to offence under Section 509 IPC. Therefore, in the present matter appellants be enlarged on bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C.. In support, he cited judgment dated 03.08.2007 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 827/2017 Dr. Pratap Middha Vs. State of Rajasthan and Asmathunnisa Vs. State of A.P. AIR 2011 SC 1905 . 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor taken me through statement of witnesses recorded by police under Section 161 Cr. P. C., wherein, the witnesses have stated that in the locality on road the incident took place whereupon the witnesses also came out of their houses and saw the incident. Witnesses include one Arun Kumar Tiwari, an independent witness, has stated that appellant was hurling abuses saying that he belongs to lower Caste (Neech Jaat) and have polluted the environment of the locality etc. It is not a case of ‘zero’ evidence for offence punishable under SC/ST (POA) Act. Hence, as per Section 18 of SC/ST (POA) Act, benefit of Section 438 Cr. P.C should not be extended to the appellants. 4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record. 5. The present matter has been registered for offence under Section 509 IPC and 3(1) (r) & (s) SC/ST (POA) Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in Asmathunnisa’s case (Supra) that it is a sine-qua-non for prosecution to prove that abuses were hurled in public view. In Dr. 5. The present matter has been registered for offence under Section 509 IPC and 3(1) (r) & (s) SC/ST (POA) Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down in Asmathunnisa’s case (Supra) that it is a sine-qua-non for prosecution to prove that abuses were hurled in public view. In Dr. Pratap Middha’s case (Supra) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case came to conclusion that no case against the appellants was made out for offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and therefore following many precedents including Vilas Pandurang Pawar V/s State of Maharastra & Ors, AIR 2012 SC 3316 , allowed the prayer for bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C. 6. In Vilas Pandurang Pawar’s case (Supra) the apex Court has observed as follows:- “The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no Court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for (10 of 14) [CRLA-827/2017] bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.” 7. In the instant matter, after going through the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of some witnesses who are mainly near relatives of the victim but one of them is Arun Tiwari, appears to be an independent witness, prosecution story qua offence under SC/ST (POA) Act is not found to be baseless. Without making any further observations on the merits and demerits of the case, I find this case not fit for grant of an anticipatory bail to the appellants.