1. The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.2173 of 2016 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 376 of the IPC and Section 3(r), (s) and (w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act 33 of 1989 for brevity).

2. Faced with imminent arrest and detention, the appellant approached the Court of Session, Kollam, which is the Special Court designated for trial of cases under the Act 33 of 1989, and moved an application seeking pre-arrest bail. The said application was dismissed outright holding that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 438 of the Act as the offence involved was one under section 3 of the Act.

3. The said order is challenged in appeal filed under section 14A(2) of the Act.

4. Heard Sri S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri E.C. Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the learned Sessions Judge was at error in rejecting the application outright without making an endeavor to ascertain whether the ingredients of the offence was prima facie made out. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the mechanical rejection of the application without even perusing the FIR is clearly against all tenets of law and the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of judgments. The learned Senior Counsel would specifically rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2012 (8) Scale 577] to bring home his point.

6. Refuting the submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that in view of Section 18 of the Act 33 of 1989, appeal under section 14A(2) can be maintained before this Court only against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing regular bail and not an anticipatory Bail. Section 18 acts as a clear bar in entertaining any application seeking pre- arrest bail and by that logic, Section 14A(2) cannot have any application. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the appeal is not liable to be entertained. It is further argued that Section 18 of the Act imposes an absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Court was justified in dismissing the application.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and I have anxiously perused the impugned order.

8. Taking express note of the continuing incidents and allegations of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, despite the deterrent provisions of the Original Act, the Parliament made certain amendments in the Act, vide Amendment Act, 2015, which came into force, with effect from 26.01.2016. The Amendment Act, 2015, allowed for establishment of Exclusive Special Courts and appointment of Special Public Prosecutor for trial of offences, under the Act, to enable speedy and expeditious disposal of cases.

9. The term "Special Court", was defined under Section 2(d), and the "Exclusive Special Court" was defined under Section 2(bd) of the Act.

2(d). "Special Court" means a Court of Session specified as a Special Court in section 14.

(bd) "Exclusive Special Court" means the Exclusive Special Court established under sub-section (1) of Section 14 exclusively to try the offences under this Act"

10. Section 14 of the Act has been substituted by the Amendment Act, 2015.

"14. Special Court and Exclusive Special Court-

(1) For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more Districts:

Provided that in Districts where less number of cases under this Act is recorded, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, spec