JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No. 78/94, registered at Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, under Sections 366, 376 and 379, IPC, read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1989'). 2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the prosecutrix is a Woman of easy virtues and she was a consenting-party to go with the petitioner, as such, no offence has been committed by him. It is further contended that inspite of the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act, 1989, this Court can make a judicial scrutiny to evaluate the entire material to find out if any prima facie case was made out or not ? It is also contended that a false case has been instituted and there is a delay of 40 days in making the report. It is contended that the husband of the petitioner did not lodge the report and he did not even go the police station along with the prosecutrix when the case was registered. Lastly, it is contended that the very fact that the statement of the prosecutrix has been got recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., shows that it is a false case. Some omissions were also referred to, during the course of arguments, in the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. 3. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. There is no dispute before me that the prosecutrix is a member of Scheduled Caste and the provisions of the Act are applicable. Section 18 of the Act creates a bar to grant anticipatory bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court Munir Khan & others v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) R.L.R. 134 . In the said judgment, the ambit of the judicial scrutiny has been narrated as under : "But the ambit of judicial scrutiny cannot be extended to the extent of appreciation of evidence but to the documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from, taken on their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting an offence under the Act." 4. In the instant case, the report was lodged by the prosecutrix herself. In the instant case, the report was lodged by the prosecutrix herself. In the report, she has given the story as to how she was taken by the petitioner from her husband's house on a false pretext and the petitioner took the advantage of her helplessness and she was ravished against her wishes. The averments made in the FIR, if taken on its face value, do make out the offence under section 376, IPC. If a person takes the advantage of the helplessness of a lady and indulges in sexual intercourse, it cannot be said that she was a consenting-party by the mere fact that she had gone with the petitioner on some excuse. Applying the principle laid down by me in the judgment referred to above, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ambit of the judicial scrutiny in such cases cannot be extended to appreciate the evidence, at this stage. 5. The other arguments made by the learned counsel have also no relevancy. The law does not permit to commit rape upon a woman of easy virtues, even though, there is material on the record to suggest that the prosecutrix was a woman of easy virtues, in the instant case. The petitioner was knowing that the prosecutrix is a woman of Scheduled Caste and knowing this very fact that if he commits rape on her, the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are attracted, which provide enhanced punishment in such cases. 6. Having considered the case from all angles, I do not find any ground to allow this application for pre-arrest bail under section 438, Cr.P.C. The same is, therefore, rejected.Bail refused *******