JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the `SC/ST Act' for short), challenging the order dismissing Cr. MC No. 7/2023 by the Special Judge, SC/ST Special Court, Ernakulam (Sessions Court) as per order dated 16.02.2023. The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No. 660/2022 of Ramamangalam Police Station, Palakkad, where the accused alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 354(A)(1)(i), 506, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Though notice mandated under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act was issued to the defacto complainant with direction to appear before this Court to submit her version, as mandated under Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST Act, the defacto complainant did not appear.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, committed rape against the defacto complainant, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste community, at 1.30 P.M. on 18.11.2022 after giving some liquid to the defacto complainant at MGM Polytechnic Engineering College, Pambakkuda. The further allegation is that in between 18.11.2022 and 07.12.2022, the accused herein threatened and committed rape against her on many occasions. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354(A)(1)(i), 506, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the defacto complainant as well as the appellant while studying at MGM College generated a love affair and later the relationship was strained. At this juncture, the defacto complainant lodged false complaint alleging commission of rape and therefore the entire allegations are false. In view of the matter, there is no reason to hold that there is prima facie case in this matter and as such the appellant is entitled to get anticipatory bail and the bar under Section 18 and 18A has no application in the present case.

5. As I have already pointed out, the defacto complainant did not appear to submit her version.

6. While opposing grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that even if there is love affair between the defacto complainant and the appellant, the appellant had given noxious liquid to the defacto complainant and made her in semi conscious condition, to avoid her resistance and thereafter she was subjected to sexual intercourse, against her will and therefore, prima facie the allegations are well made out. In such a case, anticipatory bail cannot be granted, in view of the specific bar under Section 18A of the SC/ST Act.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed a decision of this Court reported in XXXX v. State of Kerala, 2022 KHC 1001 : 2023 (2) KHC SN 13 : 2022 KHC Online 1001 : 2022 Live Law (Ker) 650 : 2022 KER 71645 : 2023 (1) KLT SN 27 wherein this Court considered the law regarding grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act in view of the bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act. This Court held relying on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. 2020 (2) KHC 423 : AIR 2020 SC 1036 : (2020) 4 SCC 727 : MANU/SC/0157/2020 that in cases where there is no prima facie case, grant of anticipatory bail is not specifically barred and when there is prima facie case, grant of anticipatory bail is specif