JUDGMENT

Gyan Sudha Misra, J. - While the validity of Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') which bars entertainment of application of anticipatory bail on behalf of any person who is accused of having committed an offence under the Act of 1989 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkrishna Balotia1, the courts at the district level as also the High Courts are often enough confronted with a variety of situations in cases where even a plain reading of the First Information Report (FIR) does not disclose commission of any offence under the Act of 1989 and still it rejects applications for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground of its maintainability merely because the case has been registered under the Act of 1989. Such situations are not isolated ones and have been encountered by various High Courts in India which is evident from the cases reported in several legal journals which disclose that anticipatory bail could not be rejected in absence of prima facie ingredients constituting an offence under the Act of 1989