JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 in Crime No.52/2020. A complaint was registered as Crime No.52/2020 by Ashoknagar police station for the alleged offences under Sections 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which are subsequently amended and the corresponding provisions would be Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(z) of the Act. 2. The complainant herein has been notified through the police. However, there is no representation on behalf of the complainant. Learned HCGP is present. 3. The allegations against the petitioners were that they threatened the complainant Smt.Sangeetha and demanded that she should remove the huts in the disputed land and while holding out the threat, they abused her with an intent to humiliate her since she was a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime has been registered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that firstly the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(z) of the Act are not at all attracted inasmuch as even per the complaint, the alleged insult was not in public view and further there was no force as contemplated under Section 349 provisions of IPC which could attract Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(z) of the Act. He also contended that since, prima facie, the provisions of the Act were not attracted, the bar contained under Section 18 of the Act would not apply. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that the presence of the petitioners would be essential for conducting a fair investigation and hence this was not a fit case to grant bail. 6. Admittedly, the complainant does not state that the petitioners herein were aware of her caste and that she was insulted by the petitioner who had clear knowledge of her caste. In my view, prima facie the provisions of the Act may not be attracted. 7. I am, therefore, of the view that this would be a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant bail to the petitioners on the following conditions: i. The petitioners are granted to anticipatory bail subject to each of them furnishing a bond for Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for likesum. ii. I am, therefore, of the view that this would be a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant bail to the petitioners on the following conditions: i. The petitioners are granted to anticipatory bail subject to each of them furnishing a bond for Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for likesum. ii. The petitioners are directed to present themselves before the Investigating Officer as and when required. iii. The petitioners are required to mark their attendance before the concerned police station twice in a month till the investigation is complete. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.