Indrajit Chatterjee J.

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which the present petitioner has prayed for his release on anticipatory bail in connection with Taltala P.S Case No. 214 dated 06.11.14 under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after called as the said Act of 1989).

It is the case of the petitioner that this informant used to work as one supportive staff of Calcutta Boys School, Kolkata and was discharging his duties as a gardener since 2005 till his service was terminated after giving due notice, Charge-sheet and after observing necessary formalities with effect from 16th June, 2014.

It is also the case of the present petitioner that nowhere in the service book of the informant there is any entry that he belongs to such community and as such there is no scope to attract Section 3 (1)(viii) of the said Act of 1989. It has further been claimed by the petitioner that the departmental proceeding, the submission of charge-sheet and order of suspension were made just to take revenge on the informant he being a member of such community.

It may also be mentioned that the parties approached the writ jurisdiction of this Court and also filed Section 144 Cr.P.C proceedings. One such writ petition being writ petition no.257 of 2014 as filed by the present petitioner is still pending before this Court. It is also the case of the present petitioner that he is one honourable person being a Teacher and Principal of Calcutta Boys School and there is no chance of his absconsion or interfering with the investigating agency.

This prayer is opposed by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and it is his submission that in view of the bar under Section 18 of the said Act of 1989 this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant anticipatory bail.

Learned Counsel who took us to Section 18 of the said Act of 1989 which runs thus:-

“Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act”.

Learned Counsel cited three decisions of our Hon’ble Court as delivered by two Hon’ble Single Judge as passed in CRR No. 2884 of 2005 (Laltu Mal @ Paka Vs. State of West Bengal), (which is one unreported decision), the decision of a third judge as reported in (2014) 2 C.Cr.LR (Cal) 297 (Parimal Maity @ Parimal Maiti & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal) and one Division Bench decision as reported in (2007) 1 C Cr LR(Cal) 465 (Khadem-e Dastegir & Anr. Vs. State).

He also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as reported in (2012) 3 C. Cr. LR (SC) 491 (Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.). Before we enter into the merit of this application let us now take into consideration the decisions referred above.

In CRR no.2884 of 2005 (Supra) no principle was laid down by the Hon’ble Single Judge to dispose of one anticipatory bail application under the said Act of 1989.

The decision of the Division Bench of our Hon’ble Court as reported in (2007) 1 C. Cr. LR (Cal) 465 (Supra) has lost its force in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as delivered in connection with Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. (Supra).

Regarding the third decision Parimal Maity @ Parimal Maiti & Anr. (Supra) we are to say that the Hon’ble Third Judge followed in principle the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as passed in connection with Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. (Supra). Be it noted that in the decision of the Division Bench it was held that Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C if Section 3 (1) of the said Act of 1989 is clamped. Thus, the decision of the Apex Court is the touchstone how such an application under Section 438 can be disposed of. we like to refer here Section 3(