The main legal point established is that the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not apply if there is no prima facie evidence of the offence under the Act.

( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this case is, as to whether, in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989, this application for grant of Anticipatory Bail, which arises of Complaint case No. 630 of 1996 in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 420 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is maintainable and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for by him in this application?

( 2 ) THE complainant Most. Parvatia Harin, filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, against four accused persons, including the petitioner, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 630 of 1996. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that she retired as a Sweeper from Giridih Municipality. She was entitled to get Gratuity after retirement but in spite of repeated demands, she was not paid Gratuity, which was equal to the salary of six and half months. It is alleged that the accused persons with a common intention decided to show an ad hoc payment of Rs. 6. 000/- in the relevant Register of the Municipality but actually to pay her a lesser amount, so that they can misappropriate the money. It was further alleged that the accused persons paid only Rs. 2. 800/- to the complainant and they misappropriated Rs. 3. 200/- and also obtained a thumb impression on a blank paper. When the complainant made enquiry, it is said that she was threatened by the accused persons. It was further said that a sum of Rs. 1. 000/- was paid by the accused persons to the complainant in two installments of Rs. 500/-each and nothing was disclosed as to why they have paid this amount to her. Lastly, it was alleged that the accused had made interpolation in the Register and thereby they have cheated a Harizan lady.

( 3 ) AN enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. was made by the learned Magistrate and thereafter cognizance for the offences under Sections 420 and 384 I. P. C. and also under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 was taken against the accused persons including the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner moved before the Sessions Judge for grant of Anticipatory bail, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the anticipatory bail petition by the impugned order dated 19-3-2005, holding it to be not maintainable in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence this application.

( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was only a Law Clerk in the Giridih municipality during the relevant year i. e. 1996 and the payment of Gratuity amount was made to the complainant on 27-3-1996 by the then cashier, Mr. Indradeo Singh and not by the petitioner and the petitioner was not in any way connected with the payment of gratuity to the petitioner. In support of the said statement a Certificate duly issued by the Special Officer, Giridih Municipality has been annexed as Annexure-5 to this petition, wherein, it has specifically been stated that so far as the payment of gratuity to the complainant is concerned, the petitioner was not in any way connected or concerned with the same and as a matter of fact, the Cashier Indradeo Singh had made the alleged payment to the complainant and the complainant in her turn had put her signature on the relevant Registers. Copies of those relevant Registers have been annexed as Annexure-3 to this application.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the State has submitted that in view of bar under Section 18 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih rightly held that the Anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was not maintainable in view of the fact that the cognizance for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the S