JUDGMENT : M G Uma, J. The appellant being the sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) in the event of his arrest in Crime No.158/2025 of Doddapete Police Station, Shimoga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Kuber K.G. 2. Heard Sri Suresh V., learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: REASONS 4. It is the contention of the prosecution that respondent No.2 being the informant obtained loan of Rs.25,95,000/- for purchase of JCB. He had paid down payment of Rs.2,70,000/- and issued 3 blank cheques. It is stated that on 11.01.2025, seven or eight persons came and way laid the JCB and took it away. When respondent No.2 had been to the office of the appellant on 06.05.2025, the appellant refused to return the JCB, but on the other hand abused in filthy language by referring to his caste and humiliated him. Therefore, the first information came to be filed. 5. It is stated that the JCB was taken away by the informant being the manager of the private finance company on 11.01.2025, respondent No.2 went to the finance company on 06.05.2025 and sought for returning the JCB, when the incident said to have occurred. But the first information came to be filed on 23.05.2025. Respondent No.2 states that he discussed with his community people and later filed the first information. The nature of allegation would not require the appellant for custodial interrogation. There is inordinate delay in filing the first information. But the first information came to be filed on 23.05.2025. Respondent No.2 states that he discussed with his community people and later filed the first information. The nature of allegation would not require the appellant for custodial interrogation. There is inordinate delay in filing the first information. In view of all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions which will take care of the interest of the prosecution as well as interest of the complainant and the witnesses. 6. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.158/2025 of Doddapete Police Station, Shimoga. The appellant is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:- a. The appellant shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; b. The appellant shall not commit similar offences; c. The appellant shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and d. The appellant shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.