ORDER : This petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.101/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 354-B, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3 (1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the said Act’ for short). 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.12.2019 at 8.00 a.m. when the complainant and her family members were harvesting paddy crop in their land, the petitioners came by forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting by holding sickle and clubs and also abused taking the caste name and brought the harvesting machine to harvest the paddy crop, thrown out the complainant and others from the lands and assaulted them with hands and legs, outraged the modesty of the complainant by dragging her saree and tearing her blouse and made an attempt to commit the murder. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the argument would contend that there was a loan transaction and neither the loan amount nor the interest was paid and when the same was demanded, a false case has been registered against these petitioners and others and no such incident took place and the petitioners have not abused taking the caste name and not outraged the modesty of a woman and hence they are entitled for bail. The petitioners are ready to obey the conditions that are imposed by this Court. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that there is a bar under Section 18 of the said Act and hence anticipatory bail cannot by granted. The contents of the complaint clearly discloses that it attracts the offences under the said Act. 5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, this Court has to examine whether this Court can exercise the power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and whether the bar under Section 18 and 18A of the said Act attracts. 6. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, there is no doubt that the case is registered against the petitioners and also others invoking the offence under the said Act. No doubt there is a bar under Section 18 of the said Act. 6. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, there is no doubt that the case is registered against the petitioners and also others invoking the offence under the said Act. No doubt there is a bar under Section 18 of the said Act. The Sessions Judge also dismissed the petition on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18 of the said Act. It is also important to note that an amendment was also made to the Act inserting Section 18A. 7. It is useful to refer to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 159 and also in the case of DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454 . The Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) dismissed with regard to Section 18 and amended provisions of Section 18A as hereunder: “8. Concerning the provisions contained in section 18A, suffice it to observe that with respect to preliminary inquiry for registration of FIR, we have already recalled the general directions (iii) and (iv) issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath’s case (supra). A preliminary inquiry is permissible only in the circumstances as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 , shall hold good as explained in the order passed by this Court in the review petitions on 1.10.2019 And the amended provisions of section 18A have to be interpreted Accordingly. 9. The section 18A(i) was inserted owing to the decision of this Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath (supra), which made it necessary to obtain the approval of the appointing authority concerning a public servant and the SSP in the case of arrest of accused persons. This Court has also recalled that direction on Review Petition (Crl.) No.228 of 2018 decided on 1.10.2019. Thus, the provisions which have been made in section 18A are rendered of academic use as they were enacted to take care of mandate issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath (supra) which no more prevails. The provisions were already in section 18 of the Act with respect to anticipatory bail. 10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. Subhash Kashinath (supra) which no more prevails. The provisions were already in section 18 of the Act with respect to anticipatory bail. 10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, 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.” 8. Having considered the factual aspects of the matter and on perusal of the complaint, it does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the said Act and only a sentence is added in the complaint that they referred the caste name as “Nayaka” and abused in a filthy language. On reading of the entire complaint, it is clear that no specific abuse was made taking the caste name. The alleged incident took place near the agricultural land. It is also pertinent to note that there was a loan transaction between the parties as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. On perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the complainant also admitted the loan transaction. When such being the case, I am of the opinion that a bar created by Section 18 and 18A of the said Act does not apply. It is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as held by the Apex Court. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.101/2019 of Moka Police Station, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves 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) each with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. (ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. (iv) The petitioners 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 petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.