1. This batch of Cr. Misc. Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of all the petitioners have been heard together, as their prayer for anticipatory bail by the respective Sessions Judge has been rejected primarily in view of bar created under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC & ST Act for the sake of brevity).

2. Petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 746 of 2010 are accused in connection with Palasi P.S. Case No. 114 of 2009 dated 22.7.2009 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 448, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(1 )(x) of the SC & ST Act. Petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 757 of 2010 as also Cr. Misc. No. 1005 of 2010 are accused in connection with Rohtas (Dehri) SC/ST P.S. Case No. 27 of 2008 dated 19.4.2008 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 384, 379, 504, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1 )(x) of the SC/ST Act. Petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 789 of 2010 are accused in Rahui (Wena) P.S. Case No. 251 of 2009 dated 21.10.2009 registered for offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 354, 379 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(ii)(v)(x)(xi) (xii) of SC & ST Act. Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 3091 of 2010 are accused in connection with complaint case no. 26 of 2009 in which by order dated 5.11.2009 cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 147, 504 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 3(1 )(x) of the SC & ST Act whereas petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 43807 of 2009 is an accused in connection with Madhubani Town (Rahika) P.S. Case No. 523 of 2008 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(x) SC & ST Act.

3. I have heard at length learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as also learned A.P.P. for the State in the respective Cr. Misc. Petitions on different dates.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, by referring to various judgments of different High Courts including our own High Court, have submitted that bar created under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act is not in absolute terms and facts of each case are required to be examined. The Session Court or the High Court is required to remove veil and if it comes to a finding that provisions of SC & ST Act is not application (sicapplicable ?) in the facts of that particular case, then accused persons can be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by looking to the merit of that case. It was further submitted that learned Sessions Court, in many of the cases at hand, have not examined the merit of that particular case and merely in view of the bar created under Section 18 of the SC & ST Act have rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, and, therefore, submission was that this Court itself may examine the merit of each of the case and should come to a finding as to whether offences alleged under the provisions of SC & ST Act are at all made out against the accused persons including the petitioners.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail primarily on the ground that applications are not maintainable in view of bar created under v iction 18 of the SC & ST Act. I may observe here that all these matters were adjourned on some previous dates at the request made by learned A.P.P., as according to him Shri Lalit Kishore, learned A.A.G.-III would be appearing in all these cases to assist the court. Unfortunately despite accommodation made, learned A;A.G.-III has chosen not to appear in these matters when it was finally taken up for hearing, for the reasons best known to him. Consequently there was no adequate assistance in these matters from the State.

6. In view of rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, and in the light of the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Court in the cases at hand, it is apt