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 vehcmently 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 (l) (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 an 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 the 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, Cr. P. C; 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) Cr. P. C; 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) Cr. P. C. ( 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 primafacre 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 an 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. and 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 T1dacoit, held the provision to be valid subject to judicial scrutiny. The ban on the grant of bail to a T1dacoit 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. 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 is no prima facie proof in support of the accusation of commission of dacoity or a specified offence against the person arrested, he cannot again be properly described to-be a dacoit as defined in the Ordinance. In. all such cases, the ban on the grant of bail to a dacoit under section 5 (2) of the Ordinance will not apply. Putting it differently, a person arrested for dacoity or a specified offence under the Ordinance can apply for bail in spite of section 5 (2) at the stage immediately after the arrest on the ground that there was no reasonable suspicion of his being concerned in such offence; at the stage after twenty four hours of his arrest and during investigation on the ground that there are no grounds that the accusation or information against him is well founded; and at the stage after the investigation is complete on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence or prima facie proof against him in support of the accusation. ( 8 ) ON the allegation that a particular person has committed an offence or is an accused under the Actor 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. Where there is no material to reasonably raise a suspicion of the commission of an offence, it cannot be said that there is an accusation within the meaning of section 18 of the Act and the maintainability of application under section 438, Cr. P. C. cannot be challenged. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, in the first part of the incident, the allegation of simple marpit is made only against co-accused Siyaram, who is not an applicant in this petition. P. C. cannot be challenged. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, in the first part of the incident, the allegation of simple marpit is made only against co-accused Siyaram, who is not an applicant in this petition. The latter part of the incident, though implicates all the petitioners, where it is alleged that they did not permit complainant Ajudhi and her husband Buddhiram from proceeding to the Police Station for lodging the report of marpit by giving threat to them as per the FIR revision that "gaon Men Nahin Rahne Doonga". The recital in singular number shows that it was only one man, who did not permit or prevent the complainant and her husband. As such the petitioners do not appear to have committed any offence. ( 10 ) BE that as it may, I do not wish to comment on the merits of the case at this stage, as it may prejudice the trial. I also make it clear that any observations made hereinabove shall not, in any manner, adversely affect the further proceedings in the case. ( 11 ) AS seen above, there being no material for prima facie suspecting the petitioners of having committed an offence under the Act, the ban imposed by section 18 of the Act, does not come into play and the petitioners under the circumstances deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail being allowed to them. ( 12 ) IN the result, the application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners, in the event of their arrest of Police Hirijan Kalyan, Morena, in Crime No. 1/91 be released on bail on their furnishing bail and personal bonds of Rs. Five thousand each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Police Officer competent to arrest them on the following conditions:1. that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner shall not, directly or 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; and 3. that they shall attend subsequent judicial proceedings regularly. Certified copy be supplied today to the petitioners on payment of usual charges. Application allowed. .