JUDGMENT :

A.M. Badar, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellants/accused in Crime No. 198 of 2018 registered with Police Station Kalyan Taluka for offences punishable under Sections 143, 342, 447, 120B, 465, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(p)(q) (r)(z) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at the instance of respondent no. 2 Suresh Hindole, are challenging the order dated 28th September 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kalyan, in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 878 of 2018 thereby rejecting the claim for anticipatory bail of the appellants/accused in the subject crime.

2. Heard. Admit. Heard finally, considering the controversy involved in the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused submitted that even if the entire material including the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the respondent no. 2 Suresh Hindole is considered, then also no offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can be made out against the appellants/accused. He drew my attention to the Sale Deed dated 12th July 2006 executed by the parties, to which the respondent no. 2/First Informant was a consenting party.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2/First Informant. He argued that as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no application for anticipatory bail can be entertained by any court for offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Consequently, the appeal as framed and filed by appellants/accused is not maintainable under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and therefore, the same needs to be dismissed as not maintainable.

5. The learned APP opposed the appeal by contending that appellants/accused have obtained documents to show that they are agriculturists from Rajasthan State and that aspect of the matter is being investigated.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the material placed on record.

7. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, creates a bar from entertaining any application for anticipatory bail moved under provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, creates a bar from entertaining any application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, still it is open for this court to see whether a prima facie case for the offence punishable under any provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is made out by the prosecution. If no such offence is made out, then mere invoking the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are of no avail and the court can entertain the application for anticipatory bail moved for such offences. In this view of the matter, contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 that the appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot be validly entertained has no substance. Even otherwise, if this court comes to the conclusion that no case for the offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is made out, then certainly appeal can be entertained.

8. The penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, invoked by the prosecution against the appellants/accused viz. Sections 3(1) (f)(g)(p)(q)(r)(z) read thus:

"3(1)(f) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land, owned by, or in the possession of or allotted t