The bar under S.18 of the Atrocities Act does not impose an absolute prohibition on granting anticipatory bail if no prima facie case is established.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants / accused persons under S.14 - A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1989"), questioning the legality and propriety of the Order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (as Special Judge (Atrocities), Surajpur, was on leave), in Bail Application No.360/2022 (Crime No.132/2022), whereby the application filed by the appellants under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has been rejected.

2. Case of the prosecution is that the appellants and their daughter namely Saggu, who are neighbours of the complainant, came in front of her house on 24-03-2022 at 7 AM and while abusing the complainant assaulted her by using filthy words over the trivial issues as the drumstick tree was planted by her on the road, which created obstruction of passage of car of the appellants, who also assaulted one Jarina Khatun, when she intercepted the matter. Owing to the alleged assault, she (Jarina Khatun) sustained certain injuries like abrasions, which compelled the complainant for lodging of the report on the date of the incident itself, I.e. 24.03.2022. Based upon the said report, the offence punishable under S.294, S.323, S.506 read with S.34 of IPC was initially registered and, thereafter, the offence punishable under S.3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 has also been added on 30.03.2022 against the appellants in connection with the said crime.

3. Apprehending their arrest with regard to the aforesaid offence, the appellants moved an application seeking grant of anticipatory bail under S.438 of the Cr.P.C. by submitting, inter alia, that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in connection with the said crime as daughter of theirs namely Aashiya Khatun was, in fact, subjected to gang rape by the husband of the complainant namely Kapil and two others namely Raja and Raju Khan, for which, she lodged the complaint on 20-04-2022, who however, subsequently committed suicide. In order to get rid of the alleged offence, the complainant has lodged the alleged false report against the appellants. It is contended further that the said daughter of the appellants was administered abortion pills by the complainant, who is the wife of said Kapil, as a result of which, it was miscarriage. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the application so made for grant of anticipatory bail was, however, rejected by the learned Court below by taking note of the bar as provided under S.18 of the Act of 1989. According to him, before rejecting the said application as such, the learned Court below ought to have seen as to whether such an offence provided under the Act of 1989 is made out or not, however, without considering the same, the application so made was rejected in a cursory manner merely by taking note of the bar provided therein. While referring to the report lodged by the complainant, it is contended further by learned counsel for the appellants that even if the same is taken into consideration as it is, no offence as such under the Act of 1989 would get attracted. The Court below has, therefore, committed an illegality in rejecting the said application for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants.

4. On the other hand, Shri Adil Minhaz, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that a bare perusal of the entire case diary statements, it is evident that the offence punishable under S.3(1)(r