JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for parties. 2. By this application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the 'Cri.P.C.'), the applicants who are accused in Crime No. 167/95 registered at Police Station, Pulgaon on 4-6-1995, are seeking their enlargement on bail in the event of their arrest. The said crime has been registered at the instance of the Ramesh Waghmare and it is alleged that on the date of incident i.e. 4-6-1995 at about 8.30 p.m. accused/applicant No. 2 Wasudeo abused the complainant who is Scheduled Caste and also assaulted him. The offence is registered by the Police in the Crime No. 167/95 against the accused/applicants under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Prevention of Atrocities Act'). 3. Apprehending their arrest, the accused/applicants made an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the said application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha as not maintainable. 4. Mr. Choudhari, the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused strenuously urged that the present case is an exceptional case inasmuch as the accusations made in the first information report do not make out an offence under section 3(X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act and, therefore, there is no bar in entertaining the application filed by the accused/applicants under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Counsel for the accused/applicants also submitted that from the reply filed by the State, which obviously is based on the case diary, there is no specific allegation against the accused/applicant No. 1 having abused the complainant and, therefore, no offence under section 3(X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out against the applicant/accused No. 1. The learned Counsel for the accused/applicants also submitted that from the reply filed by the State, which obviously is based on the case diary, there is no specific allegation against the accused/applicant No. 1 having abused the complainant and, therefore, no offence under section 3(X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out against the applicant/accused No. 1. As regards the applicant No. 2, the learned Counsel submits that though in the reply filed by the State, it is alleged that applicant No. 2 abused the complainant by saying "Mahardiya", but since there is no material to show that the said utterance amounted to intentional insulting the complainant, even against the accused/applicant No. 2, no offence under section 3(X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is made out prima facie and, therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge seriously erred in rejecting the application as not maintainable. The learned Counsel submitted that out of political rivalry, applicants/accused have been falsely implicated under section 3(X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, because so far as offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the same is bailable and the accused would have got the bail as a matter of course. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that it is not open to the Court to find out whether any prima facie case is made out under the Prevention of Atrocities Act or not once the case is registered against an accused for an offence punishable under the Prevention of Atrocities Act and section 18 of the said Act comes into operation and provisions of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked once an offence is registered under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. 6. The first and foremost question, therefore, which requires consideration in this bail application is, whether mere registration of an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act bars invocation of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act reads as under :--- "18. 6. The first and foremost question, therefore, which requires consideration in this bail application is, whether mere registration of an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act bars invocation of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities 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." Constitutionality of the said provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court in (State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia and another)1, 1995(1) Mh.L.J. 523 (S.C.). Therefore, if section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is attracted, obviously there is bar of invoking section 438, Criminal Procedure Code for grant of pre-arrest bail, but the important thing which is required to be seen while considering the applicability of section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act is, whether from the first information report, statements of witnesses under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and other available material collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, the facts on its face and assuming to be true, disclose existence of any offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act or not. If First Information report, statements recorded by the police under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and the available material in the case diary ex facie do not disclose the ingredients constituting the offence under any of the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the jurisdiction of the Court under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code cannot said to be taken away. 8. It is true that the Prevention of Atrocities Act has been enacted to prevent commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and, therefore, the provisions of the Act should be applied to make effective the letter and the spirit of the Act. 9. 9. In State of M.P. v. Ram Kishna and another (cited supra), the Apex Court emphasizing the need to protect the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes observed, "When members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes assert their rights and demand statutory protection, vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. In these circumstances, if anticipatory bail is not made available to persons who commit such offences, such a denial cannot be considered as unreasonable or violative of Article 14 as these offences form a distinct class by themselves and cannot be compared with other offences." The Supreme Court proceeded further and also observed, "The offences which are enumerated under section 3 are offences, which to say the least, denigrate members of scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes in the eyes of society, and prevent them from leading a life of dignity and self-respect. Such offences are committed to humiliate and subjugate members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes with a view to keeping them in a state of servitude. These offences constitute a separate class and cannot be compared with offences under the Penal Code. Therefore, section 18 of the said Act cannot be considered as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution." 10. However, that does not mean that in a case where because of political rivalry or other consideration, though a case is registered under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, yet prima facie accusation made in the first information report does not disclose any offence punishable under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the jurisdiction of the Court under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code is taken away. The Court should not shirk its responsibility in examining appropriate cases where it is brought to the notice of the Court in an application under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code that ex facie the accusation discloses no offence having been committed under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Merely because the case has been so registered by the police under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, an application for grant of anticipatory bail should not be thrown out without finding out whether there are accusations of commission of offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act or not. Merely because the case has been so registered by the police under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, an application for grant of anticipatory bail should not be thrown out without finding out whether there are accusations of commission of offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act or not. It would be really hazardous if the allegations made in the first information report of accusations contained therein do not make out any offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, yet a harass a person the police officials register the case under the Prevention of Atrocities Act so that such person may not invoke section 438, Criminal Procedure Code as section 18 of the Prevention of Atrocities Act bars invocation of section 483, Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail and the Court refuses to entertain such application. Section 18 bars invocation of section 438, Criminal Procedure Code in relation to a case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act and not simply because a case has been registered against such person under the said Act. Thus, whenever it is pointed out by an accused/applicant in an offence registered under the Prevention of Atrocities Act to the Court while moving application for pre-arrest bail under section 438, Criminal procedure Code, that the accusation made in the F.I.R. or allegations contained therein do not constitute any offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, it is the duty of the Court to examine and judicially scrutinize whether on its face, the first information report and the material available in the case diary do constitute an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The correctness of allegations is not required to be gone into and the only thing required to be seen is that the allegations made in the first information report and available material in the case diary taking to be true on its face, do constitute an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act or not. The correctness of allegations is not required to be gone into and the only thing required to be seen is that the allegations made in the first information report and available material in the case diary taking to be true on its face, do constitute an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act or not. If after judicial scrutiny, the Court finds that the First Information Report and the material available in the case diary on its face do not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the jurisdiction of the Court, if the case on merits is made out, is not taken away in granting pre-arrest bail under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, because in that event, it cannot be said that the accusation reveals commission of an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. On the other hand, if the Court finds that the first information report and the material in the case diary do disclose the offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act and the accusation ex facie reveals that an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act by the accused/applicant has been committed by the accused/applicant, obviously section 18 of the Atrocities Act comes into operation and the Court ceases to have any jurisdiction to pass any order invoking section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the present case, it would be seen that on the basis of the allegations made in the first information report, the material available in the case diary which is reflected from the reply filed by the State, do disclose commission of an offence under section 3(X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act so far as accused/applicant No. 2 is concerned. Correctness or the merits of allegations cannot be gone into and it is seen from the record that the accused/applicant No. 2 abused the complainant who is a member of the Scheduled Caste and, therefore, so far as he is concerned, his bail application for pre-arrest is without any substance, because the accusations against him do reveal commission of offence by him under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, his application for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. 12. 12. But so far as accused/applicant No. 1's case is concerned, it is not shown from the First Information report or the other relevant material that he abused the complainant and prima facie, therefore, it cannot be said that there is specific accusation made out against the applicant/accused No. 1 for commission of the offence punishable under section 3(X) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act and therefore, bar created under section 18 of the Act would not come in way of the applicant No. 1. 13. Consequently, so far as applicant No. 2 is concerned, there is no merit in his application under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code and the same is dismissed. However, as regards applicant No. 1, Ram Chandra Govindrao Watkar, on its face, the accusations do not make out any offence having been committed by him under the Prevention of Atrocities Act and, therefore, the Police Station Officer, Pulgaon is directed that in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 167/95 registered at Police Station, Pulgaon he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- and two sureties in the like amount. It is further directed that the applicant No. 1 shall not interfere or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. He is further directed to make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Order accordingly. Order accordingly. -----