The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case registered as Crime No.75/2018 of the Ottappalam police station under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324 and 294(b) read with 34 IPC and also under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They seek the protection envisaged under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the event of arrest by the police in the case.

2. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the first information report, is as follows: The de facto complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste. On 24.01.2018, at about 15.30 hours, she was sitting inside her house. Hearing a commotion, she came out of the house. Then she saw the two accused beating her son. When she tried to prevent the accused from assaulting her son, the first accused referred to the name of her caste and insulted her and her son by stating that being the children of a person belonging to such caste, they would be having the character/conduct of committing theft and he beat her on the left cheek with his hand. He also caught hold her hair and hit her against the wall. When she fell down, he kicked her and called her by her caste name. Meanwhile, the second accused beat her children with her hand and with a stick. When the de facto complainant tried to prevent the second accused from assaulting her children, the first accused again beat and kicked her and insulted her by calling her with reference to her caste name. When the neighbours and the local people gathered there, the accused left the place in an autorickshaw. It is alleged that the accused committed the aforesaid acts for the reason that the son of the de facto complainant had allegedly stolen a light from the autorickshaw owned by the first accused.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and also the report filed by the investigating officer.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He has contended that there is statutory interdict against granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners who are accused of committing offences under the Act.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations raised against the petitioners in the complaint given by the de facto complainant are false. Learned counsel would further contend that the court has to examine whether a prima facie case is made out against the persons accused of having committed an offence under the Act and if the ingredients of the offence alleged against them under the Act are not made out from the allegations in the complaint, then the provision contained in Section 18 of the Act will not come into play. Learned counsel would submit that the allegations raised against the accused by the de facto complainant in the first information statement given to the police by her do not constitute any offence under the Act and therefore, Section 18 of the Act has no application to the facts of the case.

6. Even at the outset it is to be noted that the name of the second accused has been deleted from the array of accused in the case. The investigating officer has filed a report to that effect before the court concerned. The case diary reveals this fact.

7. It is also to be noted that the case was originally registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act but subsequently the offence under that provision has been deleted and the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act have been incorporated in the case.

8. Section 18 of the Act reads as under:

"18. S.438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.- Nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act."

9. There can be no doubt w