JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant. 2. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying to enlarge the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 1, on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.36/2020 of Kodigenahalli Police Station, Madhugiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (the 'SCST Act' for short). 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 20.02.2020 at 1:45 p.m, when the work was going on towards Byrenahalli on a District main road, the complainant who is an Engineer inspecting the work carried out by the contractors, at that juncture, accused No.1/second petitioner herein came to spot in a two wheeler and abused him touching his caste name saying that who has given the Government work to him and the way in which he carried out the work, there was a discrimination in respect of his village and abused that, who gave the job and the other person i.e., accused No.2/first petitioner herein, being a pillion rider of the said two wheeler held his collar and fisted on his face, as a result, he fell down and sustained injury and immediately he was taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw. Hence, prayed the police to take action against them that they abused touching his caste name and assaulted him. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case in Crime No.36/2020 and invoke the offences punishable under Sections for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SCST Act. 4. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who have been arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 1, in this petition have contended that the second petitioner is an agriculturist, he was not aware of the caste of respondent No.2/complainant because the respondent No.2 has been residing at Madhugiri. Whereas, the second petitioner is the resident of Hunaswadi village, as such, he was not having the knowledge about the caste of the complainant. Whereas, the second petitioner is the resident of Hunaswadi village, as such, he was not having the knowledge about the caste of the complainant. It is also contended that accused No.2 (first petitioner) belongs to the Scheduled Caste. Hence, special enactment does not attract against him. The allegation of touching his caste is not in the public view because none was present, at that time. Hence, the learned Counsel vehemently contended that special enactment does not attract against these petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the allegation is that, by touching the caste name abused in a filthy language and also assaulted the complainant, as a result, he has sustained injury and he took the treatment in the hospital. There is no specific averment in the complaint against the second petitioner that he abused him touching his caste name, hence, the contention of the petitioners' counsel is that, it does not attract the offences under the special enactment. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that, the complainant in the complaint specifically mentioned the abuse made by the petitioners touching his caste name and also questioned, who gave the job to him and the first petitioner fisted him, as a result, he has sustained an injury. There is a prima facie case to believe the case against accused No.1 and accused No.2 that they assaulted him and abused him touching the caste name of the complainant. 7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 1, and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Complainant, this Court has to examine as to whether it attracts special enactment, which bars granting of anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A of the special enactment and whether these petitioners have made out a ground to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C, to enlarge them on bail in the event of their arrest. 8. 8. Having taken note of the complaint averments, on reading the entire complaint, a specific allegation is made against accused No.1 (second petitioner) in this petition that he abused the complainant touching his caste name and the only allegation made against accused No.2 (first petitioner) is that, he suddenly held his collar and fisted on his face, as a result, he fell down and sustained an injury and also by picking up the stone, assaulted him and the contractors, who were present at the spot i.e, Akhilesh, Manjunath and Nagaraj, came and rescued the complainant. 9. Having taken note of the averments made in the complaint, it is clear that the incident was taken place in the public view and also specific allegation is made against accused No.1 that touching his caste name abused him and this Court does not find any allegation against accused No.2 that he abused him taking his caste name. The only allegation made against him is that he assaulted him. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6210/2019 (Shivakumar @ Buddi v. The State of Karnataka and another), this Court while granting the bail, an observation has been made that, there is no allegation that any other public were present at that particular point of time when the accused abused the complainant by referring to his caste. 11. Further, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad and another, (2011) AIR SC 1905 , in this judgment, it is held that, the offence must take place in the public view and no offence attracts if person is not present. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment in the case of Somesh Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2004) CriLJ 680 , in this judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court while exercising the powers under Section 18 of the Act, held that "if complaint is found to be false, anticipatory bail cannot be denied to accused." 13. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment in the case of Somesh Das v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2004) CriLJ 680 , in this judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court while exercising the powers under Section 18 of the Act, held that "if complaint is found to be false, anticipatory bail cannot be denied to accused." 13. Further, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. K. Padma Reddy, v. Station House Officer, Bellampalli and others, (2004) CriLJ 503 , in this judgment, it is held that, every utterance which comes within purview of provision of Act by itself is not offence, unless it is made in a place within public view. 14. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandra Poojari v. State of Karnataka, (1998) CriLJ 53 , while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, this Court has made an observation that, no disclosure in complaint that occurrence had taken in public view. 15. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also the judgments of the Apex Court prior to and subsequent to the amendment of SCST Act, in the case of Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2018) 6 SCC 454 and the recent judgment reported in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others,2020 SCCOnLine(SC) 159 , the Apex Court held that, if the complaint does not constitute an offence under the special enactment, then there is no bar to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in view of the bar enshrined under Sections 18 and 18A of the special enactment. The Apex Court further held that, if the allegation made in the complaint does not attract and the complaint appears to be false then the Court can exercise the powers. 16. In the light of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the material available on record, this Court has already pointed out that a specific abuse has been made against the complainant in the public place that too in the presence of three persons, which has been mentioned in the complaint itself. Hence, there is a prima facie case against accused No.1 that he abused the complainant touching the caste name of the complainant. 17. The contention of the petitioner is that the accused No.1 was not aware of the Caste and whether he was aware of the Caste or not cannot be decided in this proceeding and the same is the subject matter of the trial but the complaint is very specific that he was working in the same area from the last three years and while abusing took the caste name of the complainant and abused in the public view. Hence, the principles laid down in the Judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, accused No.1 (petitioner No.2) is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 18. Now coming to accused No.2, who has been arraigned as petitioner No.1 in this case, on looking into the complaint averments, there is no specific allegation against him except making the allegation that he fisted on his face and the wound certificate, which has been produced before the Court by learned High Court Government Pleader that he has sustained an abrasion over the nasal bridge as per the MLC register. Taking into note of the gravity of the offence and nature of the injury and no allegation against him that he abused him touching his caste name, I am of the opinion that, this Court can exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, in view of the principles laid down in Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) and Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), 19. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 1. The petition is allowed in part. 2. The bail petition of petitioner No.2/accused No.1, is rejected. 3. The bail petition of petitioner No.1/accused No.2, is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner No.1/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.36/2020 of Kodigenahalli Police Station, Madhugiri, subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner No.1/accused No.2 shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. ii) The petitioner No.1/accused No.2 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner No.1/accused No.2 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. iv) The petitioner No.1/accused No.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier. v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m, before the Investigating Officer till the charge sheet is filed.