The exclusion of anticipatory bail under S.18 of the Act of 1989 applies only if there is a prima facie case of offence, allowing appeals against bail orders under S.14A.

1. The appellants herein are accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in Crime No. 976 of 2017 of Guruvayur Temple Police Station, registered on the allegation of offence punishable under S.143, S.147, S.341, S.323 and S.294(b) read with S.149 of Indian Penal Code and S.3(1)(x) [as per the amendment 3(1)(s)] of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989').

2. The prosecution case is that at about 8.45 p.m. on 16/12/2017 at the Kousthubham Park, Guruvayur, a gang of persons assaulted the de facto complainant, a person belonging to scheduled caste. He was abused and humiliated on account of being a member of the scheduled caste. An application was submitted before the Special Court for anticipatory bail in Crl. M.C. No. 2216 of 2017 and it was dismissed by the Special Judge as there is a bar under S.18 of the Act. An appeal was filed under S.14A of the Act of 1989 before a Single Judge of this Court The learned Single Judge based on the divergent finding on the question whether an appeal under S.14A of the Act is maintainable against an order disallowing pre - arrest bail under the Act rendered in Ajan G. Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 2017 (1) KHC 412 : 2017 (1) KLT 488 : 2017 (1) KLD 303 : 2017 (1) KLJ 588 : ILR 2017 (2) Ker. 74 : 2017 CriLJ 1641 and in Crl. A. No. 1104 of 2017 dated 28/11/2017 (Niyas P. A. v. State of Kerala, 2017 (5) KHC 1004 : 2018 (1) KLD 16 : 2018 (1) KLJ 238 : 2018 (1) KLT SN 39 : ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 901 : 2018 CriLJ NOC 236), referred the issue for consideration by a Division Bench, by its order dated 09/03/2018. Hence, the matter came up before us.

3. To resolve the issue it is necessary to extract S.18 and S.14 A of the Act of 1989, which read as under:

"18. S.438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act. - Nothing in S.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.

14A. Appeals. -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of S.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed from:

Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of ninety days:

Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days.

(4) Every appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal."

4. A conjoint reading of S.18 and S.14A of the Act of 1989 would show that the bar under S.18 would come into play only when there is prima facie evidence of commission of an offence under the Act. The legal position was very much settled by the Apex Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2018 (2) KHC 207 : AIR 2018 SC 1498 : 2018 (1) KLD 515 : 2018 (2) KLT 33 : 2018 (2) KLJ NOC 2 : ILR 2018 (2) Ker