JUDGMENT K.S. Mudagal, J. - Apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 66/2019 of Davanagere Extension Police station, petitioners have filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed complaint before Davanagere Extension Police against accused Nos. 1 to 12 alleging that on 25.04.2019 at about 11.00 a.m. said accused conducted protest against him abruptly in some pretext and abused him in foul language and also calling him by his caste. He alleged that accused hit the banners containing his image with footwear etc. 3. On conducting investigation, respondent No. 1 police have charge sheeted 42 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 507, 294, 114, 117, 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act). 4. Petitioners are arrayed in the charge sheet as accused Nos. 13 to 15, 20 to 22 and 26. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the material on record shows that the offences under the Act are not at all attracted. He further submits that the complainant had not mentioned the names of the petitioners in the first information report and they were implicated much after the complaint on the basis of alleged further statement of CW.1 and statements of CW.5 to CW.8. 6. He further submits that, it was respondent No. 2 who tried to outrage the feelings of certain community and regarding that petitioner No. 3 herein filed complaint against respondent No. 2 in Crime No. 46/2019 of Mayakonda police station and as counter blast to that case, the petitioners are implicated in this case. 7. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 relying on Sections 18 and 18A of the Act vehemently opposes the application on the ground that they totally bar grant of anticipatory bail. He further submits that the charge sheet records including the CDs and the statements of witnesses show that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the arguments of learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the petition. 9. Except the offences under the Act the other offences alleged against the petitioners are bailable one. Whether Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, totally bars grant of anticipatory bail is the main question raised in the case. 10. 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the arguments of learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the petition. 9. Except the offences under the Act the other offences alleged against the petitioners are bailable one. Whether Sections 18 and 18A of the Act, totally bars grant of anticipatory bail is the main question raised in the case. 10. The Honble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India and Others 2020 SCC Online SC 159 of the judgment held as follows: '10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C., it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions.' (Emphasis supplied) 11. Thus it is clear that if the complaint/charge sheet do not make out prima-facie case of applicability of the provisions of the Act, the bar created under Section 18 and 18A(i) of the Act shall not apply. 12. Therefore, this Court has to see whether the complaint/charge sheet records make out prima-facie case for applicability of the Act. 13. In the complaint, these petitioners are not named as accused. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners were strangers to him. The reading of the charge sheet shows that protest was organized on 25.04.2019 at Nerligi village against respondent No. 2 on the ground that he spoke outrageously against their religion and faith. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places on record the first information report in Crime No. 46/2019 of Mayakonda police station. The said record shows that petitioner No. 3 herein filed complaint against respondent No. 2 alleging that respondent No. 2 spoke about the religion of those protestors in an outrageous manner and attempted to commit breach of peace. Mayakonda police registered the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 504 and 506 of IPC on 25.04.2019. The very next day, this complaint was filed by respondent No. 2. 15. Reading of the charge sheet does not indicate the acts of the accused against the complainant were with reference to his caste, but due to some difference of the ideologies between the parties. 16. The very next day, this complaint was filed by respondent No. 2. 15. Reading of the charge sheet does not indicate the acts of the accused against the complainant were with reference to his caste, but due to some difference of the ideologies between the parties. 16. The complaint was filed on 26.04.2019. Up to 03.05.2019, nothing was said against the petitioners. On 03.05.2019 the statements of CW.5 to CW.8 were purportedly recorded who allegedly named these petitioners. The further statement of CW.1 was recorded on 04.05.2019. Statement of CW.4 was recorded on 18.05.2019. 17. So far as the alleged CDs, they being electronic evidence, admissibility of those documents have to be examined at trial. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint makes out prima-facie case of applicability of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the matter is fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhans case referred to supra. Bar of Sections 18 and 18A of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. Further, this Court in Crl. P. No. 983/2020 has already granted bail to accused Nos. 17 and 24. Now the investigation is completed. Except for trial, the petitioners are not required for any other purpose. Therefore it is fit case to grant anticipatory bail with suitable conditions. The petition is allowed. The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No. 66/2019 of Davanagere Extension Police Station. If they are arrested in the said case, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ii) Petitioners shall execute personal bonds in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each and furnish two sureties in the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Jurisdictional Court for their appearance. (iii) Petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise. (iv) Petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when required for the purpose of trial.