ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 8 and 9 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 5/2017 of Nelogi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 143, 147, 504, 148, 354, 324, 323 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, One Mahantappa has lodged a complaint alleging that on 03.01.2017 at about 10.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between him and petitioners when he asked the persons to be cautious as their oxen may dash. At that time, the petitioner abused by raising his caste name and assaulted with hands which was pacified by Mahadevappa and Gram Panchayath Members. In that light, on 04.01.2017 at 8.30 a.m., 1520 members came near the house of the complainant and one Malkappa assaulted with iron rod on his head; Mailari assaulted with stone on right knee; Shirmanth pushed on ground and kicked with legs and when his brother intervened, Madivalappa assaulted with rod on head and Subbanna assaulted with stone on his back; Sharanappa kicked with legs; Shrishail, Kamalabai and Basappa dragged the saree of Anita, a pregnant lady and assaulted with hands. Kamalabai assaulted and dragged his mother Kasturibai. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.5/2017. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence alleged against them. There is no prima-facie case made out either under Section 354 of IPC or under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. He has further contended that the first information report does not reveal such ingredients to attract the alleged offences. He has also contended that the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is also contended that petitioners have got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of they being absconded. He has also contended that the offences alleged against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is also contended that petitioners have got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of they being absconded. It is further contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and they are ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State vehemently contended that the petitioners have committed serious offence of outraging modesty of a woman belonging to lower caste. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 471 to contend that there is bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act to grant anticipatory bail, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have gone through the contents of the complaint, FIR and other material produced along with the petition. 7. On perusal of the records, it would indicate that the alleged incident has taken place on 04.01.2017 at about 8.30 a.m. Though the other accused persons have also involved in the alleged crime, but there is no allegation against them with regard to the offence under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. Insofar as petitioners are concerned, they have dragged the saree of Anitha, a pregnant woman belonging to lower caste. Petitioner No.2/accused No.9 has assaulted and dragged the mother of the complainant. On going through the contents of the complaint, it would indicate that there is allegation made against the petitioners which attracts the provisions of the SC/ST Act and in that light, petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail as held in the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bachu Das vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 471 . 8. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners and the overtacts done by them, I feel that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 8. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners and the overtacts done by them, I feel that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the case, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Sessions Court seeking regular bail, after surrendering before the Court by serving copy of the bail application one day in advance to the Public Prosecutor and in such an event, the same be disposed of without undue delay.