The bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applies to the grant of anticipatory bail, and the Juvenile Justice Act does not have an overriding effect over Section 18 of the SC/ST Act.

N.K. Gupta, J.

1. This application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the present applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 87/2010 registered at Police Station (AJK) Pali District, Umariya for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 326 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the 'SC/ST Act').

2. The prosecution story in short is that the applicant assaulted the complainant Guddu Sonkar by knife causing grievous hurt to him. It is also alleged that the applicant abused the complainant Guddu Sonkar mentioning his caste. The complainant also stated in FIR that the applicant has committed the aforesaid crime to insult the complainant on the basis of caste.

3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants' date of birth was 10-8-1993 and, therefore, he was below 18 years of age at the time of incident, in such circumstances he comes under the category of 'juvenile' and, therefore, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. It has been urged on his behalf that no offence under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act' is made out. And, therefore, bar of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not attracted in present case.

4. On the other hand learned Govt. Advocate urges that due to bar of Section 18 of SC/ST Act bail of anticipatory nature cannot be accepted in favour of the applicant.

5. At present the subject matter of examination is the extent upto which the merits of the case can be touched in terms of provision of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The provision of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act reads as under:

18. 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 an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act.

6. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Court which is granting bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to pass an order either expressly or impliedly that the offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out, though it may be written in the order that it will not cause any prejudice to the Trial Court on merits. Language of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is specific and, therefore, if either Special Court or any Superior Court passes an order that provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act are not attracted then it means that, the Court has given a negative indication about commission of that crime and that would be binding on the Trial Court.

7. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code, is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no Court shall entertain application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such offence is not made out.

8. It is settled position of law that at the time of framing charges, Court is expected to appreciate the evidence, but the material which is available on record should be considered as it is. While considering the bail application scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. Court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion of the evidence.

9. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case law:

(i) R.K. Singh and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh 2007 (2) Crimes 44 (Chhattisgarh)

(ii) Narendra Singh Yadav and Anr. v. Stale of Chhattisgarh 2007 (2) Crimes 46 (