ORDER : 1. This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The respondent-Police registered complaint against the petitioner in Crime No. 387/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 and 506 and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The complaint was made by one Smt. N. Dhanalakshmi stating that petitioner had received Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) towards advance for having let out to her a building in which she was running a Paying Guest Hostel. It appears that this petitioner did not return the advance money of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) and for this reason there was some dispute between them. To resolve this dispute, the Police called both of them to Station on 13.12.2017. After coming out of Police Station at about 7.40 p.m., the petitioner was said to have abused her by saying as - then he assaulted on her hands with his helmet causing bleeding injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the allegations made in the complaint are false. The complainant did not pay rent regularly. She was due to pay Rs. 9,10,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Ten Thousand only) to the petitioner. Therefore, he got issued a notice to her. To this notice, the complainant also got issued a reply through her Advocate. Thereafter, he filed a suit against the complainant for recovery of arrears of rent and to evict her. When this civil case is pending before this Court, it is highly impossible that this petitioner would go to the extent of taking the caste name of the complainant for insulting her. He further argues that the petitioner is an Advocate having 47 years of standing at the bar. The petitioner is well aware of the consequences. The complaint was made only for the purpose of harassing the petitioner. Bare reading of the complaint does not disclose ingredients to be essentially present to attract the offences. He refers to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asmathunnisa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1905 . 4. Notice to the complainant as required under Section 15(A)(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) was given and the complainant is represented by her counsel. 4. Notice to the complainant as required under Section 15(A)(3) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) was given and the complainant is represented by her counsel. He argues that the petitioner does not say anything about the complaint lodged on 13.12.2017 with regard to the incident that happened after they came out of the Police Station. It may be true that the petitioner has filed suit against the complainant by issuing notice. All these transactions were before 13.12.2017. The complainant had to go to Police Station on 13.12.2017 as she was summoned in relation to the complaint made by the petitioner or otherwise she had no occasion to go to the Police Station. Since the complainant was insulted and humiliated out side the Police Station, it was an incident that occurred within public view and hence, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader argues that Section 18 of the Act is a bar for granting anticipatory bail as the complaint discloses intentional insultation of the complainant. 6. Along with the petition, the petitioner has produced some documents which show that the building was let out by him to the complainant on 31.03.2016 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,30,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Thousand only) and advance money of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh only). Copy of the notice dated 20.01.2017 issued by the petitioner to the complainant shows that latter was demanded to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 9,10,000/-. The complainant got issued the reply to this notice. Thereafter, there are some more notices exchanged between the parties. The petitioner also filed a suit against the complainant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,20,990/- being arrears of rent. Nobody can dispute this civil litigation. The question to be examined is whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Act because in the complaint it has been alleged that the petitioner took the name of the complainant’s caste for insulting her. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asmathunnisa (supra) has held as below: “6. .. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asmathunnisa (supra) has held as below: “6. .. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” 7. The above ruling states that, it is very essential that complaint must disclose that the accused does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe and that the accused intentionally insulted and intimidated the accused with an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe within public view. Conspicuously this allegation is not there in the complaint. Moreover, if really the petitioner he had such an intention to insult the complainant just because she belongs to the caste “Wadda” it is possible to say that he would not have let out his building to her. The entire dispute appears to be in relation to building let out to the complainant. Though it is undisputed that on 12.12.2017, the complainant and the petitioner went to Police Station, what transpired after they came out of the Police Station is a matter to be proved before the Court. As such, I do not find caste based attack. Therefore, Section 18 is not a bar for granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances. As a result, petition can be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. 8. In the event of arrest of the petitioner by the respondent-police in connection with Crime No. 387/2017, he shall be released on bail on obtaining from him a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. 8. In the event of arrest of the petitioner by the respondent-police in connection with Crime No. 387/2017, he shall be released on bail on obtaining from him a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer. 9. The petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions: (i) He shall make himself available to Investigation Officer whenever his presence is necessary for investigation. (ii) He shall not threaten the witnesses. (iii) He shall not destroy the evidence.