JUDGMENT K.S. Mudagal, J. - Crl. P. Nos. 1521/2020 and 1535/2020 are filed for anticipatory bail. Crl.P. Nos. 1541/2020 and 1632/2020 are filed for grant of bail in Crime No. 13/2020 of Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru which are registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(j) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act 1989), Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (for short the Act 2013) and also under Sections 304, 338 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 1521/2020 are accused Nos. 1 and 2 and petitioners in Crl.P. No. 1535/2020 are the office bearers of Shwethambar Sthanakwasi Bawees Sampradaya Jain Sangh Trust, petitioners in Crl.P. Nos. 1541/2020 and 1632/2020 are accused Nos. 3 and 4 respectively in the aforesaid case. 3. Petitioners are all office bearers of Sri Shwethambar Sthanakwasi Bawees Sampradaya Jain Sangh Trust situated at No. 9, Bhagawan Mahaveer Road, Bengaluru 560001. On 25.01.2020 at about 12.00 noon two labours by name Siddappa and Muniyanna engaged in the premises of the said sangha died due to asphyxia. They belonged to Scheduled Caste. 4. One Sri Narasimha Murthy filed complaint before Commercial Street Police against the Manager, trustees and other responsible Officers of the aforesaid Sangha alleging that in violation of the provisions of the Act 2013, the accused had employed the victims for manual scavenging of chamber/manhole and the victims died due to exposure to obnoxious gases. 5. On the basis of such complaint, Commercial Street Police registered Crime No. 13/2020 as aforesaid. During the investigation, in the remand application dated 28.01.2020 the petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 1521/2020 and 1541/2020 were named as accused. Accused No. 3 was arrested and remanded to the Judicial custody. In the remand application dated 15.02.2020, the petitioner in Crl.P. No. 1632/2020 was shown as accused No. 4. He was produced before the Court and remanded to the judicial custody. Therefore, accused Nos. 3 and 4 have filed the aforesaid bail petitions and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and other office bearers have filed the aforesaid anticipatory bail petitions. 6. In the remand application dated 15.02.2020, the petitioner in Crl.P. No. 1632/2020 was shown as accused No. 4. He was produced before the Court and remanded to the judicial custody. Therefore, accused Nos. 3 and 4 have filed the aforesaid bail petitions and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and other office bearers have filed the aforesaid anticipatory bail petitions. 6. Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for the advocate on record, Sri Prasanna Kumar and Sri Dhananjaya C.M., learned counsel for the petitioners submit that scene of offence was a rain water harvesting old well and not a manhole or chamber, therefore Act 2013 does not apply. They further submit that the petitioners were not aware of the caste of victims and the incident was purely an accident, therefore, the Act 1989 also does not apply. They submit that at the most the offence under Section 304A of IPC attracts and that is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They further submit that except two petitioners, all other petitioners are senior citizens having age related ailments and they are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court for granting bail/anticipatory bail. 7. Per contra, Sri P.D. Subramanya, High Court Legal Services Committee Panel advocate appearing for Yellamma, w/o deceased Muniyanna, opposes the application on the ground that Section 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989 bars grant of anticipatory bail. He further submits that there is sufficient material to show that the petitioners are guilty of the offences and having regard to the gravity of the offences, the petitioners are not entitled for bail and anticipatory bail. 8. Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned HCGP reiterating the arguments of learned counsel for the victim further submits that the case is still at the investigation stage and if bail and anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners are likely to tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. 9. 8. Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned HCGP reiterating the arguments of learned counsel for the victim further submits that the case is still at the investigation stage and if bail and anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners are likely to tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. 9. About the applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in the context of Section 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989, the larger bench of the Honble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India 2020 SCC Online 159 held that though Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not apply to the cases under Act 1989, however, if complaint does not make out a case for applicability of the provisions of the Act 1989, the bar created under Section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply. 10. Section 3(1)(j) of the Act 1989 prohibits employing a member of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe to do manual scavenging or permitting such employment by any person for any other purpose. Section 2(g) of the Act, 2013 reads as follows: (g) 'manual scavenger' means a person engaged or employed, at the commencement of this Act or at any time thereafter, by an individual or a local authority or an agency or a contractor, for manually cleaning, carrying, disposing of, or otherwise handling in any manner, human excreta in an insanitary latrine or in an open drain or pit into which the human excreta from the insanitary latrines is disposed of, or on a railway track or in such other spaces or premises, as the Central Government or a State Government may notify, before the excreta fully decomposes in such manner as may be prescribed, and the expression 'manual scavenging' shall be construed accordingly. (Emphasis supplied) 11. A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that an act amounts to manual scavenging, only if it involves handling of human excreta in an insanitary latrine or in an open drain or pit into which the human excreta from the insanitary latrine is disposed of. The complaint does not state that the victims were employed to handle the human excreta. 12. According to the prosecution and the counsel representing the victim, the scene of offence was a chamber meant for handling human excreta whereas according to the petitioners, that was a well meant for harvesting the rain water. 13. The petitioners in Crl. The complaint does not state that the victims were employed to handle the human excreta. 12. According to the prosecution and the counsel representing the victim, the scene of offence was a chamber meant for handling human excreta whereas according to the petitioners, that was a well meant for harvesting the rain water. 13. The petitioners in Crl. P. No. 1521/2020 have produced the copy of press note issued by Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board on 28.01.2020. In that press note, the Chief Engineer of BWSSB has stated that the scene of offence was a well meant for harvesting the rain water. He has further stated that his inspection revealed that, it was an old well which was used for storing the water. He also stated that the well was not connected to sewerage drain. Therefore prima facie applicability of Act, 2013 and 2(g) of Act, 1989 is a questionable and questioned fact. 14. Under the circumstances, the matter is covered under the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prathvi Rajs case regarding the applicability of Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, 1989. 15. In the complaint no specific allegations are made against any of the petitioners stating that they targeted the victims. No motive could be gathered at this stage against any of the petitioners. They are implicated in the case only on the ground that they are the office bearers of the Sangha which owned the property in question. Therefore, these are the fit cases to grant bail and anticipatory bail as prayed for with suitable conditions. The petitions are allowed. Petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 1541/2020 and 1632/2020 are granted bail and petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 1521/2020 and 1535/2020 are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 13/2020 of Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru. In the event of arrest of petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 1521/2020 and 1535/2020 in Crime No. 13/2020 of Commercial Street Police Station, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (ii) They shall execute personal bonds in a sum of Rs. P. Nos. 1521/2020 and 1535/2020 in Crime No. 13/2020 of Commercial Street Police Station, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; (ii) They shall execute personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and furnish one surety in the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court for their appearance; (iii) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise; (iv) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer/Court as and when required for the purpose of investigation/trial. Petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 1541/2020 and 1632/2020 shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall execute personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; (ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer/Court as and when required for the purpose of investigation/trial; (iii) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner; Hand delivery of the operative portion of the order is permitted.