ORDER :

1. This appeal under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Special Act’) is arising out of an order dated 18.08.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Mahasamund (C.G.) (for short ‘Special Judge’) in Bail Petition No. 698/22 by which the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application of the appellants under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Appellants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 185/2020, registered at Police Station-Komakhan, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) for an alleged offence punishable under section 452, 435, 323, 427, 147, 148, 149, 188, 269, 270, 458 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) under Sections 3, 4 of Epidemic Diseases, Act 1897 under Sections 3 (2) (iii), 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.09.2020 the present appellants entered the house of complainant alleging that there is liquor in the house and ransacked the house and burnt 4 motorcycles thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Mr. Shubhank Tiwari learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have not committed the aforesaid crime and have been falsely implicated. He further submits that the appellants have already been enraged on regular bail vide orders dated 09.02.2021 and 17.02.2021 under Sections 452, 435, 323, 427, 147, 149, 188, 269, 270 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, under section 3, 4 of Epidemic Diseases, Act 1897. Thereafter Section 458 and Section 3 (2) (iii), 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act was added hence the appellants had filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge which was rejected by the learned Special Judge. He goes on to submit that from reading of the FIR no case under Section 458 of IPC and 3 (2) (iii), 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act. Further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that once the regular bail was granted by the learned Special Judge, it ought to have allowed the anticipatory bail application as no case under Special Act is made out. He then submits that the alleged crime was not committed on the ground that the complainant belongs to Scheduled caste. He further submits that the appellants are permanent resident of given address and they are ready and willing to comply any of the conditions which may be imposed by the court while granting bail. In view of the above submissions he prays that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside ant the appellants may be extended benefit of section 438 of Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2019) 17 SCC 326, Manoj Suresh Jadhav and Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 17 SCC 362, order dated 04.02.2021 passed by coordinate bench of this court in CRA No. 844 of 2020 Umendra Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh.

4. Refuting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/state vehemently argued that that the on the basis of the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation it is established that the appellants have committed the crime. He further submits that bar under section 18 of the Special Act would operate and the appeal may be dismissed. On 29.09.2022 the victim has objected in grant of anticipatory bail through concerned District Legal Service Authority.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the case diary.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, held as under:

“32. As far as the provision of Section 18A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has t