K.K. Sonawane, J.

Heard. Admit. The matter is taken up for its adjudication on merit with the consent of both sides.

2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellant in Crime No.12 of 2009, registered with Nizampur police station, District Dhule for the offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989", for the sake of brevity), the appellant/original accused taking recourse of the provisions of Section 14(A)(2) of the Act of 1989, preferred the present appeal to redress his grievances.

3. The allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution, in short compass, is that the prosecutrix - girl came into contact with the appellant/accused since year 2012-13, when both of them were taking education in the Adarsh College at Nizampur. There was love affair in between them. It has been alleged that the appellant used to indulge in the activities of indecent behaviour with the prosecutrix. She ventilated the grievances about objectionable conduct of the appellant to her parents. Thereafter, understanding was given to the appellant, pursuant to which he had also tendered apology for his disgusting behaviour with the prosecutrix. According to prosecution, the programme of 'Ring Ceremony' of the prosecutrix for her proposed marriage with one Dilip Gangaram Sable, resident of Amsarpada, Taluka Navarpur, Dist. Nandurbar was scheduled to be held on 10/02/2019. Taking umbrage of the proposed marriage of the prosecutrix with another person, the appellant put his photographs with prosecutrix on the Facebook, to cause damage to her character. He had also given threats of life to the father of the prosecutrix. A police complaint was lodged against the appellant to that effect on behalf of father of the prosecutrix. But there was no change in the behaviour of appellant/accused. According to prosecution, on 7.2.2019, in the morning at about 10.30 a.m. when the prosecutrix girl was proceeding towards her house by road, that time, the appellant arrived on his bullet motor bike and attempted to intercept her. He had given threats that he would not allow her to marry with other person. He pulled her Dupatta and caught hold her hand. He insisted the prosecutrix to accompany with him on motor bike, but the prosecutrix did not pay any heed to his threats and after returning home, she verbalized the incident to her parents, brother and other members of the community. Eventually, the prosecutrix filed report to the concerned police of Nizampur P.S. for penal action against the appellant.

4. Pursuant to FIR of the prosecutrix, the concerned police of Nizampur police station, registered the Crime No. 12 of 2019 under Section 354-A, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(W)(i)(ii) of the Act of 1989. The police of Nizampur Police Station swung into action. I.O. visited to the scene of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. The appellant, apprehending his arrest into the crime, rushed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhule, for the relief of his pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. However, the learned Sessions Judge, did not favour the appellant/accused and refused to grant relief of anticipatory bail as contemplated under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, that the allegations nurtured in the FIR explicitly made out a prima-facie case against the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(w)(i) (ii) the Act of 1989. Therefore, in view of statutory bar as prescribed under Section 18 and 18A of the Act of 1989, the application for pre-arrest bail cannot be entertained. Therefore the application for anticipatory bail of the appellant came to be rejected. The learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order, which is the subject matter of pres