JUDGMENT Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is fi led under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the State to set aside the order dated 27.08.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.340/2018 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar and to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents and also to direct to the concerned pol ice to arrest the respondents-accused and commit to custody. 2. The facts leading to the petition are that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada Karwar has passed an order dated 27.08.2018 in Criminal Misc. No.340/2018 granting anticipatory bail to the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 subject to terms and conditions. 3. The State being aggrieved by the said order has filed a petition contending that the order passed by the Special Court is contrary to law and facts of the case. The anticipatory bail was granted without considering the bar provided under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, the 'Act'). The Sessions Court should not have entertained the anticipatory bail application. In view of the decision in the case of Srinivasan K. V/s State of Karnataka, (2017) ILR(Kar) 1275 no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail unless the prima facie case is not made out under the Act. The enactment is to protect the persons who belong to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. The failure to consider the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned Judge has erroneously allowed the petition without considering the principles laid down in the above said judgment. The reasons given by the Sessions Court for granting bail are not proper and justified. 4. Heard the learned HCGP for the petitioner-State and learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5. Perused the records. 5. Learned HCGP submits the anticipatory bail was granted to respondents No.1 and 3 (accused No.1 and 3) vide order dated 20.12.2018, but respondent No.1- Mahammad Bilal Khan failed to appear before the trial Court regularly. Hence, bail granted to him requires to be cancelled. As far as other accused are concerned, they have been appearing regularly. 6. 5. Learned HCGP submits the anticipatory bail was granted to respondents No.1 and 3 (accused No.1 and 3) vide order dated 20.12.2018, but respondent No.1- Mahammad Bilal Khan failed to appear before the trial Court regularly. Hence, bail granted to him requires to be cancelled. As far as other accused are concerned, they have been appearing regularly. 6. As could be seen from the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge relying on the prosecution records, has come to the conclusion that the respondents were not knowing the caste of the complainant and the respondents never intended to quarrel against the complainant, but it is only when they were quarreling with one person Chetan, the complainant interfered and the accused assaulted him. Thus, the material on record do not indicate that the respondents were having prior intention to abuse him by taking caste name and insult the complainant in public view, as such, there are no reasons to refuse the discretion. 7. It is well established principle that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power to grant bail is not to exercise as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam v. State of Telangana, (2020) 2 SCC 743 by adverting to a decision in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 614 has held as under : "9. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail." 9. The present petition is filed only for cancellation of bail on the ground of illegality of order passed by the Sessions Court. There are no specific al legations that the respondents accused are threatening the witnesses. The present petition is filed only for cancellation of bail on the ground of illegality of order passed by the Sessions Court. There are no specific al legations that the respondents accused are threatening the witnesses. On considering the submission made on behalf of the State and respondents, this Court is of the view that no supervening circumstances have been made out to warrant the cancellation of bail. There is no cogent material to indicate that the accused No.2 to 5 have violated bail conditions. The order passed by the Sessions Judge granting bail cannot be termed as perverse. 10. For the above reasons, this Court holds that the order of the learned Sessions Court granting bail cannot be faulted as far as respondents No.2 to 5 are concerned. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. The bail granted to accused No.1-Mahammad Bilal Khan s/o Asad Khan Pathan is cancelled. The petition filed in respect of respondents No.2, 4 and 5 is rejected.