ORDER

28.1.2005 — Heard Shri H. S. Mishra, appearing for Shri T. K. Sahoo, Advocate engaged by the petitioner, Shri Sibani Sankar Pradhan, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayers that he may be granted anticipatory bail in Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.125 of 2004 dated 17.12.2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No.4151 of 2004 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar with any terms and conditions considered to be fit and proper. Further, he has made two alternative prayers; (1) to grant him three months interim bail to enable him to move the Courts below as well as before this Court in the light of the judgment laid down by the Apex Court as well as by this Court or (2) this Court may direct the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar to release the petitioner on bail on his surrender in the above mentioned case.

In fact this petition has been registered as BLAPL i.e. anticipatory bail, due to first prayer. But learned counsel for the petitioner has made oral prayer for exercising inherent powers by this Court conferred to it under Section 482, Cr.P.C. due to the alternative prayers.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an employee of Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Bhubaneswar. She is a lady masseur working under petitioner’s Panchakarma Department where the petitioner is posted as Department Doctor (Medical Officer). Complainant has lodged a First Information Report registered as F.I.R. No.125 of 2004 dated 17.12.2004 mentioning the incident of 8 months before i.e. 20.4.2004 stating therein that while she entered into the Chamber to bring soap for hand wash, and when she was taking the soap by opening almirah, the petitioner stood at the Chamber’s door looking outside and when knowing that no one was there, he hugged the informant and asked her to give a hot kiss. Then she protested and ran away by giving him a thrust. Initially the F.I.R. was registered imposing Sec¬tion 354, I.P.C. against the petitioner. But on the next date i.e. on 18.12.2004 the Officer-in-Charge, Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. reported the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar that during the course of investigation it was ascertained that the victim lady is a Sched¬uled Tribe by caste and as such he had imposed Section-3 of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘S.C. & S.T. Act’) also. The case is under investigation at present.

Learned counsel for the complainant has raised objection and drawn the attention of this Court towards the provision of Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T. Act which is reproduced as under :-

“Nothing in Section 438of 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.”

In view of the above quoted provision, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner for the accusation under the S.C. & S.T. Act.

It is right that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in relation to a case in which accusation of commission of offence under S.C. & S.T. Act has been alleged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in anticipatory bail application filed by Narsingh Charan Moharana,* reported in (2004) 29 OCR 864, the operative part of which is quoted as under :-

“The copy of the F.I.R. indicates that some unknown person extended threat and abused the M.L.A.-informant over mobile tele¬phone and the mobile telephone from which the call had been made was the mobile telephone of the petitioner.”

xxx xxx xxx

It is submitted by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that accusation having been made under Section 3(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, bar will apply. Section 3(x) of the Act reads thus :-

“Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates wit