JUDGMENT :

K.K. SONAWANE, J.

1. Heard. Admit. The appeal is taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both parties.

2. Present appeal is directed against the impugned order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail of the appellants in Crime No. 15 of 2019 registered with Dhule Taluka Police Station under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as “Act of 1989” for the sake or brevity). The appellants preferred present appeal by invoking remedy under Section 14-A(2) of Act of 1989.

3. The prosecution case in short compass is that, on 30-01-2019 first informant - Vaishali Hiralal Sonwane approached to the Dhule Taluka Police Station and ventilated the grievance that she is belonging from Adiwasi - Bhil community and residing with her husband and other family members in the campus of SRPF, 500 Quarters, Building No. N-2 Room No. 4 located within the vicinity of village Mahindale, Dhule. Her husband was on Bandobast duty in Gadchiroli area since 10-05-2018. It has been alleged that on the day of incident i.e. on 17-05-2018, in the wee hours of night at about 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. when the first informant Vaishali Hiralal Sonawane, her daughter Rudraksha as well as sister-in-law Mukta Bapu Sonawane were at home in SRPF Quarters, that time appellant-Ganesh Patil visited her for enquiry as to whether some one else came to her house. The first informant-Vaishali Sonawane disclosed him that no one else visited to her house. She replied in negative, thereupon the appellant-Ganesh Patil proceeded to frisk the house of complainant. But, all his efforts did not evoke result. There was altercation in between the first informant and appellant - Ganesh Patil. He took the cellphone of first informant forcibly and went away. In the following morning, appellant-Jitendra Lonari informed that the Superior Officer Mr. Namdeo Pawar called her for enquiry. Accordingly, first informant-complainant and her mother proceeded towards the office of Superior Officer Mr. Pawar. It has been alleged that when first informant-complainant and her mother were en-route to office of Superior Officer Mr. Namdeo Pawar, that time appellants accosted and reprimanded her for objectionable behaviour on her part. They indulged in conversation with the first informant in disgusting and derogatory manner. They cast aspersion on the first informant-complainant that the person by name Sunny Gawali visited her house in the wee hours of night. The appellants hurled castiest abuses and humiliated her within a public view. They also attempted to outrage her modesty by making obscene gestures. Eventually, the first informant Vaishali Sonawane rushed to the Police Station and filed the report.

4. Pursuant to FIR of complainant Vaishali Sonwane, Police of Dhule Taluka Police Station registered the Crime No. 15 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of Act of 1989, and set the penal law in motion. The appellants, apprehending their arrest in the present crime, filed the application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, for their pre-arrest bail bearing Criminal Bail Application No. 119 of 2019 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). But, learned Additional Sessions Judge found reluctant to nod in favour of applicants-appellants. Learned trial Court held that in view of statutory bar under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989, Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for anticipatory bail. Eventually, learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application of appellants for anticipatory bail and passed the impugned order, the validity, propriety and correctness of which, is agitated in the present appeal.

5. Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted tha