JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by Accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.122/2019. Investigation is complete and chargesheet is laid against nine accused persons under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R) and (S) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (in short the SC/ST (POA) Act). 2. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objection, but has orally opposed the petition. Learned HCGP has filed a report for having served the copy of the petition on the complainant. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2019 at about 4.30 p.m., while C.Ws.1 and 2 were returning in their motor-cycle after performing the funeral ceremonies of their uncle, on the way, C.W.2 asked the driver of a standing lorry for a match box and at that time, all the accused persons are alleged to have formed into an unlawful assembly and Accused No.1 asked C.W.1 about his name and address and when he disclosed his name and address, all the accused persons abused C.Ws.1 and 2 by calling their caste name in public view. Accused Nos.2 and 4 pushed C.W.1 and assaulted on his face and stomach. 4. The wound certificate produced by the prosecution indicates that C.W.1 had sustained swelling over his nasal breach which is certified as simple in nature and C.W.2 had sustained a cut wound over his right wrist which is also certified as simple in nature. 5. The circumstances alleged in the chargesheet indicate that the accused were not knowing C.Ws.1 and 2 prior to the alleged date of the incident. According to the prosecution, when C.W.2 was quarreling with C.Ws.9, 10 and 11, Accused No.1 is stated to have asked their name, which indicates that parties were not known to each other. Under the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the alleged occurrence has taken place on account of calling of caste name of C.Ws.1 and 2. Even though the prosecution has chargesheeted the accused under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(R) and (S) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the material produced along with the chargesheet does not prima facie attract the ingredients of the said offence. Even though the prosecution has chargesheeted the accused under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(R) and (S) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the material produced along with the chargesheet does not prima facie attract the ingredients of the said offence. Under the said circumstances, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, in my view, does not operate against the petitioners to admit them to bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution has not alleged any overt act against the petitioners and it is not clear from the chargesheet as to which of the petitioners have abused C.Ws.1 and 2 calling out their caste. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has to go long way to substantiate the charges leveled against the petitioners and the custody of the petitioners cannot be extended any further solely by way of punishment. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days from the date of this order and on their appearance, they shall be enlarged on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:- a. The petitioners shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b. The petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when required; c. The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner; d. The petitioners shall not get involved in similar offences; and e. The petitioners shall not leave the territorial limits of the trial Court without prior permission.