ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.187/2018 registered by Vemagal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 327, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) and (xi) of Sc/St (POA) Act. 2. The gist of the case are that: On 01.07.2018, at about 9.30 a.m., when the complainant, his wife and son were working in survey No.27 of Chokkapura Village, the accused persons came there by holding deadly weapons to cut Silver Oak and Honge tree. When the complainant and others questioned, the accused persons abused them by naming their caste. Accused No.4, holding the collar of the complainant assaulted him with a club on the left hand and others have assaulted; accused No.5 assaulted with sickle to the son of the complainant on his left leg and caused bleeding injuries; accused No.7 assaulted on the right leg of the complainant; accused Nos.3 and 5 assaulted on the stomach of the wife of the complainant; accused No.3 assaulted on her head and caused injury by biting her right hand finger and also snatched the Mangalya chain and hence, all the accused persons have committed the alleged offences. 3. I have heard Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramakrishna Hedge, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State. 4. Learned senior counsel contends that there was a dispute regarding the land and a complaint was filed by the complainant. Earlier to that, a complaint was registered by the wife of accused No.3 against the complainant and others alleging that they have assaulted and caused injuries and on the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.186/2018 and thereafter, they were apprehended and released by the Police. As a counter blast, the present complaint came to be filed only to take a revenge. He further submitted that in the statements which have been made by the complainant and other witnesses, there are no specific averments with regard to the language which has been used to touch the caste of the complainant. As a counter blast, the present complaint came to be filed only to take a revenge. He further submitted that in the statements which have been made by the complainant and other witnesses, there are no specific averments with regard to the language which has been used to touch the caste of the complainant. He also submitted that the language used is also omnibus and there is no specific allegations against specific accused persons in this behalf. He further submitted that when the complaint is certainly peculiar and could not have been acted upon for the said overt acts, the Court ought to have granted anticipatory bail. He further submitted by drawing my attention to the injury certificate that three persons had suffered simple injuries and are already discharged from the hospital and they are out of danger. He further submitted that the accused persons are ready to abide by the conditions that would be imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and release the petitioners-accused on bail. 5. Learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 vehemently argued and submitted that the complaint and other materials clearly go to show that the petitioners accused have abused the complainant and his family members by taking the name of their caste and they have also assaulted the complainant and his family members. He also drew the attention of this Court to Section 18 of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and submitted that the said Section prohibits grant of anticipatory bail. He further argued by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2012 SC 3316 wherein, it was held that if a complaint contains any specific averment that the accused insulted or intimidated with an intention to humiliate by calling with caste name, in such circumstances, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. By referring to other materials, he submitted that there is a prima facie material as against the accused petitioners and if the accused petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may not abscond and they will be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition. 6. By referring to other materials, he submitted that there is a prima facie material as against the accused petitioners and if the accused petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, they may not abscond and they will be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition. 6. It is the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State that the petitioners-accused have abused by touching the caste of the complainant and they have also assaulted with stick and the same has been seized by the Police by drawing panchnama. There are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and if the accused/petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the contents of the complaint and other materials which have been produced in this behalf. The said record indicates the fact that earlier the complaint was registered by the wife of accused No.3 in Crime No.186/2018 at about 9.30 p.m. for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 and 506 r/w. 149 of IPC and the present complaint came to be registered thereafter at about 10.00 p.m. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant that Section 18 of the Act is a bar to grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons. For the purpose of ready reference, Section 18 of the Act reads as thus: “18: Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons com4mitting an offence under the Act- Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.” 8. Though, a plain reading of Section 18 of the Act indicates that there is a prohibition for exercising power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the offences under the Act, it further clarifies the fact that when an offence falls under a special case, for enforcement of this Act, the offence which is un-punishable under the Code, shall be an offence punishable in accordance with the provisions of this Act. By going through the said Section, it impliedly excludes Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with the offences. But the general power which has been vested in this behalf is not exclusively excluded has to be taken into consideration with reference to the facts of the case on hand. As could be seen from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in AIR 2018 SC 1498 , it has been observed that though there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act, it is not absolute bar against the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court has to see the prima facie case while considering such applications. In that light, the said bar cannot said to be applicable to this case. No doubt, by going through the said provision and the object the said provision is incorporated in order to curb the atrocities and to protect the civil rights. The parliament in its wisdom introduced Section 18 in the Act for applicability in special cases for atrocities and Section 438 Cr.P.C. is totally excluded. But the allegations do not make any prima facie offences punishable under the provisions of the said Act. Under such circumstances, bar under Section 18 of the Act is inapplicable and Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be made available in this behalf. 9. Keeping in view the above said ratio and the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly, the first complaint came to be filed by the wife of accused No.3 and that the said case has been registered in Crime No.186/2018 in the same police station and subsequently, the present complainant and other accused members were released. Thereafter, at about 10.00 p.m., the present complaint has been filed in this behalf. It clearly goes to show that it is a counter blast to the complaint which has been filed by the wife of accused No.3. Even on perusal of the complaint, though there is reference with regard to the language used, but the said language is omnibus and there is no specific allegations made against the accused persons and exactly, who used the said words in this behalf has not been stated. Even on perusal of the complaint, though there is reference with regard to the language used, but the said language is omnibus and there is no specific allegations made against the accused persons and exactly, who used the said words in this behalf has not been stated. In the absence of any specific reference to the statement or language used by any one of the accused or specific language used by the particular accused person, it cannot be said that the provisions of the said Act is applicable in this behalf. Even the averments made in the complaint are very vague and are not certain. 10. In light of the above said facts, the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be attracted. Even in the decision quoted by the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2, in Vilas Pandurang Pawar’s case (supra), wherein, it has been specifically observed that though Section 18 of the Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the duty is cast upon the Court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the Act, has been prima facie made out, in particular, in this behalf. That in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I feel that in respect of the said bar is concerned, in the present case it should not be an obstacle to the process of the Court or it shall not bar the Court to grant the anticipatory bail to the accused persons. 11. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances in the case on hand, the bar under Section 18 of the Act should not apply in the absence of the specific allegations made against the specific accused persons. 12. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petitioners-accused are entitled for anticipatory bail. 13. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and the accused petitioners are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.187/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 327, 504 and 506 r/w. read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of Sc/St (POA) Act, by the Vemagal Police, with the following conditions: 1. Accused petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakh Only) each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency. 2. They shall surrender before the Investigating Agency within 15 days from today. 3. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner directly or indirectly. 4. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. 5. They shall cooperate with the investigation. 6. Till the charge-sheet is filed, they shall mark their attendance with jurisdictional police once in 15 days between 10:00 a.m and 5:00 p.m.