Shacheendra Dwivedi, J. -- 1. By this application, under section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the applicants seek a direction for grant of bail, as they apprehend that they may be arrested in Crime No. 1 of 1991, registered by Police Station Harijan Kalyan, Morena, for offences punishable under sections 294, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(x) and (xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act).

2. Shri C.S. Dixit, learned Dy. Government Advocate vehemently opposed the application by raising a preliminary objection that since provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 are alleged to have been violated to bring the acts of the petitioners within the mischief of section 3(1)(x) and (xiv) of the Act, section 18 of the Act, would put a ban against the consideration of the application for anticipatory bail.

3. It would be relevant here to reproduce section 18 of the Act, which is as under:

"Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act -- nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on all accusation of having committed an offence under this Act". (Emphasis supplied)

4. Chapter II of the Act deals with the offences of attrocities and Chapter III of the Act envisages situation where exterment is called for. Sub-section (2) of section 17 appearing in Chapter IV of the Act, makes the provisions of Chapters VIII, X and XI of the Criminal Procedure Code applicable for the purpose of section 17(1) of the Act. Section 18 puts an embargo to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest in relation to a case on accusation of his having committed an offence under the Act and makes the provisions of section 438 CrPC, inapplicable.

5. The allegations against the petitioners made under different sections of the Indian Penal Code in the instant case do not fall within the mischief of section 17 of the Act and are all bailable, that is to say even do not attract the provisions of section 438(1) CrPC.

6. So far as the allegations against the petitioners under sections 2(1)(x) and (xiv) are concerned, mere allegation by the complainant or the prosecution without there being something more prima facie in support of the accusation, the offence cannot be properly said to be specified or committed under the Act, involving arrest of a person accused and in such cases the fetter put on the grant of bail under section 18 of the Act will not apply. In other words, without there being any material, it cannot be said that a person will not be entitled to anticipatory bail merely because he has been described as (in accused person by the police on accusation of having committed an offence under the Act. There must be material on record to show that the person is involved in the offence, or connected with the offence under the Act as to attract the provisions of section 18 of the Act.

7. This Court by majority view in Pramod Kumar Khare v. Government of M.P. & others (Misc. Petition No. 827 of 1981, decided on 14.10.1981), while examining the provisions of section 5(2) of the M.P. Dakaiti Prabhavit Kshetra Adhyadesh, 1981, which prohibited the grant of bail to a 'dacoit', held the provision to be valid subject to judicial scrutiny. The ban on the grant of bail to a 'dacoit' under section 5(2) of the Ordinance further came to be considered in Gulab Chand v. State (1982 JLJ 170) by a Full Bench of this Court. It would be relevant to reproduce section 5(2) of the Ordinance.

"5. Regulation of grant of bail --

(1) .........

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no application for bail of a dacoit shall be allowed, if opposed by the Police or by the prosecution".

Considering the ban provided on the grant of bail to a dacoit, the Court found that:

"If after the investigation is complete, there i