S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) THE applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 17 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 3311 of 2013 registered under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Vide order dated 26.06.2014 taking note of the contention of the counsel for the applicant that since the alleged occurrence took place in the chamber of the complainant and she has not stated the name of any witness it cannot be said that the offence as alleged was committed in "public view" and thus, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 and interim protection was granted to the applicant.
(3.) MR . Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel has appeared for opposite party no. 2. He relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vilas Pandurang Pawar v. State of Maharashtra", reported in : (2012) 8 SCC 795 and submits that there is a specific bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act and therefore, the present anticipatory bail application cannot be entertained by this Court. He relies on paragraph no. 10 and 13 of the said judgment which is extracted below: 10. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence. 13. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the specific averments in the complaint made by the complainant Respondent 3 herein, we are of the view that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable to the case on hand and in view of the same, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the present conclusion is confined only to the disposal of this petition and the trial court is free to decide the case on merits.;