JUDGMENT

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent - Police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest.

2. Brief facts of the case as per FIS is as under;

It is stated that the first informants are belonging to Scheduled Caste community. It is alleged in the FIS that on 14.12.2019, the first informants, who are totally 15 in numbers stated that the petitioners and other accused knowing fully well that these first informants are belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, intentionally insulted them by abusing with reference to their caste, criminally intimidated stating that they would put fire to their house besides stripping of the Sarees of the women belonging to their community, apart from that they have assaulted them.

It is further stated in the FIS that because of the existence of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Flag in the village, petitioners are feeling humiliation and therefore they were telling that they would put fire to said flag and abused the complainants with reference to by taking the caste of their community, in this regard FIS is lodged before the Police and on the basis of the same, a case in Crime No.189/2019 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 295, 504 & 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 ( 'Act', for short).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no prima facie case is made out in the FIS. Further submitted that on earlier occasion the petitioners have submitted a representation addressing to the Deputy Commissioner stating that the complainants were trying to destroy the existing water tank and intending to put up some construction. Therefore, to prevent that, they have submitted the representation. Being enraged with this, in retaliation, the first informants have lodged the present false first information statement (FIS) with a malafide intention and it does not depict any prima facie case so as to proceed under the provisions of the Act. Further submitted, that now the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet and in the gist of the charge sheet, story of the prosecution entered is totally different as that of the averments in the FIS. Therefore, argued with reference to the prosecution case made out in the charge sheet besides arguing that there is an improvement and there is a complete deviated stand as that of the FIS.

4. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as co-ordinate Bench of this court, which are as follows;

1. Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India And Ors, (2020) AIR SC 1036

2. Venkatachalaiah and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2003) ILR(Kar) 3985

3. Appoji Reddy & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.2433/2020 (DD:10.06.2020)

Accordingly, prayed to allow the petition with any conditions as deemed fit by this court with which the petitioners are ready to abide by them.

5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that since as per the FIS and also charge sheet, there is a prima facie case to attract the offences foisted under the provisions of the Act and in such a way there is a prima facie allegation made. Therefore, under Sections 18 & 18-A of the Act create bar to entertain the anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, prayed to reject the petition as not maintainable even otherwise on merits of the petition.

6. I have heard the arguments from both sides and having carefully gone through the entire prosecution papers made available to this court at this stage, the point regarding maintainability of petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. arises for my consideration, which is as follows:-

"Whether the present petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and