1. This is an application filed by the applicant u/s. 438 Cr. P.C. on the allegation that he apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 23/98," registered at Scheduled Caste Kalyan Prakosth, Jhabua U/s. 341, 294 IPC and Sec. 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. It is stated on behalf of the prosecution that as the case is registered against the applicant under the provisions of S.C. & S.T. Act, therefore, in view of Sec. 18 of the said Act, the application under Sec. 438 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that in view of the allegation alleged against the applicant, prima facie do not constitute, an offence U/s. 3(1)(x) of the said Act. As such, the bar created U/s. 18 of the said Act shall not apply for consideration of the application filed by the applicant U/s. 438 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in cases of Kalyan Singh v. State of MP. (1995(II) MPWN 9) and Bablu v. State of M. P. (1996(II) MPWN 98). The learned counsel also contended that the present applicant is a government servant and is posted as Veterinary Doctor at Veterinary Hospital, Alirajpur, district Jhabua. The applicant is falsely implicated for the offences registered against him on the report of one Govindsingh Bhuria. The applicant is respectable person and has good status in the society.

4. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel and perusing the orders of this Court in cases of Kalyan Singh v. State of MP. and Bablu v. State of MP. (supra), it is not disputed that the bar created to grant anticipatory bail for under the S.C. & S.T. Act u/s. 18 of the said Act shall not apply when no prima-facie material is available on the case diary to raise suspicion of commission of any offence under the Act is found out against the accused-applicant. In Ramdayal and others v. State of MP. (1991 JLJ 468), this Court has also held that, "a particular person has committed an offence or is an accused under the Act or if he has been so described by the police as an accused, the Court would not without examining the merits of the accusation dismiss his application filed U/s. 438 Cr. P.C. Where there is no material to reasonably raise a suspicion of commission of the offence it cannot be said that there is an accusation within the meaning of Sec. 18 of the Act and the maintainability of application U/s. 438 Cr. P.C. cannot be challenged".

5. In view of the above, on considering the allegations made against the applicant and the evidence available on the case diary, without commenting on the merits of the case at this stage, I do not find material for prima-facie suspecting the applicant of having committed an offence under the Act. As such, the ban imposed by Sec. 18 of the Act does not come into play and the applicant, under the facts and the circumstances of the case deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail U/s. 438 Cr. P.C.

6. The application filed by the applicant is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Dr. Suresh Kumar Tyagi, S/o Hargovind in the event of his arrest by the police Harijan Kalyan Prakosth, Jhabua, in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the equal sum to the satisfaction of police officer competent to arrest the applicant on the following terms and conditions :--

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly of indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.