- (1.) This reference has been made in the light of divergence of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges of this Court on the issue of maintainability of the instant application for anticipatory bail in view of the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1989). Point of difference :-
(2.) Banerjee, J while holding that the application was not maintainable opined as follows :- "In the instant case, in the complaint it is alleged that the incident took place outside the house of the complainant, which appears to be a place within public view. Whether the incident actually occurred at the place alleged or at any other place outside public view is a matter of investigation. It is not open to a Court deciding an application under Section 438 of the Indian Penal Code to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. It is immaterial that the contents of the GD entry are not before us since investigation has been ordered under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C of a complaint in writing, which we have perused. In deciding an application under Section 438, for anticipatory bail, the scope for appreciation of evidence and analysis of materials on record is limited. This Court is not to indulge in critical analysis of the materials on record.
(3.) In view of specific bar of Section 18 of the 1989 Act, I am not inclined to entertain the application for anticipatory bail.";