ORDER 1. Applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code'), in spite of the fact that they are involved in different sections of the Indian Penal Code as also u/S. 3 (1) (x) and other clauses of the same section of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Atrocities Act'). 2. The only question raised in this application, at this stage, by the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the non-applicant/State was that no anticipatory bail can be granted when there is involvement of applicants under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant/s and learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, a legal point of public importance was raised that in spite of involvement of the applicants under section 3 (1) (x) and other clauses and other sections of the Atrocities Act, the Court can examine the merits of the case and consider anticipatory bail under the Code. 4. Various offences are defined u/S. 3 of the Atrocities Act. 5. Under section 18 of the Atrocities Act, there is a specific provision that: "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." 6. The question of granting anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code was prohibited under the Atrocities Act when applicants are involved and accusation having been made for committing offences under this Act. 7. It was clear that whenever there is an accusation involving arrest of the applicants under the offences defined under the Atrocities Act, the provisions of section 438 of the Code for granting anticipatory bail will not apply. 8. As against this, learned counsel for the applicants argued that in spite of the prohibition being incorporated under section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the Court is not precluded from examining as to whether there was any accusation for any offence under the Atrocities Actor mere mentioning of the offences under this Act in the FIR or in the Challan could be sufficient to hold that there was an involvement of the applicants in the offences under this Act prohibiting grant of anticipatory bail. 9. 9. On this point, reliance was placed on the case of Ratanial v. State of M.P., reported as 1994 (I) MPWN 154 . The question of grant of anticipatory bail was not considered in that case. Only point which was considered was as to whether using the word ‘Khatik' would constitute any offence under the Atrocities Act. 10. Another case referred by the learned counsel for the applicants was that of Dule Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as 1992(11) MPWN 108. In that case a learned Single Judge of this Court held that bar of section 18 of the Atrocities Act shall not apply in the facts of the instant case, because there was, in fact, no accusation of having committed any offence under the Atrocities Act. The Court further held that to constitute offence under the Atrocities Act, ingredients of the offence must be stated clearly by the complainant or by eye-witnesses in their statement recorded by the Police so as to attrack the provisions of section 18 of the Atrocities Act. In the facts of that case, the Court on facts, held that since there was no accusation, therefore offence under the Act could not be constituted, In view of the facts of that case, the findings of this Court might have been correct that unless accusation is there in the FIR or in the statement of witnesses, the provisions of section 18 of the Atrocities Act will not be attracted. In a case, where there is no accusation of any ingredients constituting an offence under the Atrocities Act, the Bar of section 18 will not apply. 11. I fully agree to This aspect of the matter that unless there is an accusation of facts constituting an offence under the Atrocities Act, the Bar of section 18 will not apply. But once, there are accusations either in the FIR or in the statement of the witnesses constituting offence under section 3 of the Act, then, the Bar of section 18 has to be applied and grant of anticipatory bail under the provisions of section 438 of the Code cannot be considered. 12. But once, there are accusations either in the FIR or in the statement of the witnesses constituting offence under section 3 of the Act, then, the Bar of section 18 has to be applied and grant of anticipatory bail under the provisions of section 438 of the Code cannot be considered. 12. Another case of Ramdayal & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as 1991 JLJ 468 was relied upon by the applicants' learned counsel, in which, it was held that unless the allegations made were not examined on merits, application for anticipatory bail could not he thrown out merely on the suspicion of the commission of an offence under the Atrocities Act. 13. A full Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab Chand v. State of M.P., reported as 1982 JLJ 170 considered the implication of analogous provisions of Dakaiti Prabhavit Kshetra Adhyadesh, 1981, and grant of bail in different set of circumstances. The provisions of Atrocities Act were not at all considered in that case. 14. Learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State opposed this application on the ground that merely if there is an accusation of commission of an offence under the Atrocities Act against the applicants, their application for anticipatory bail cannot be considered, as it has been specifically barred u/S. 18 of the Atrocities Act. According to learned Panel Lawyer, provisions of section 438 of the Code would apply only to the offences committed under the Panel Code and not to the offences under the provisions of the Atrocities Act, where there is specific bar in that respect. 15. The latest case of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as State of MP & another v. Rain Krishna Balothia & another, 1995 JLJ 172 , was relied upon by the learned State counsel. In this case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the implications of section 18 of the Atrocities Act and also considered the bar of section 18 in respect of grant of anticipatory bail to an accused for offences under the Atrocities Act in view of the provisions of section 438 of the Code. 16. In this case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court was mainly concerned with the Constitutional validity of section 18 of the Atrocities Act. It was challenged in that case that section 18 was ultra vires of the Constitution. 16. In this case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court was mainly concerned with the Constitutional validity of section 18 of the Atrocities Act. It was challenged in that case that section 18 was ultra vires of the Constitution. Hon'ble the Supreme Court clearly held in the aforesaid case that section 18 of the Atrocities Act was not ultra vires and its implication has to be examined in each case according to its facts. 17. Hon'ble the Supreme Court clearly held that whenever there is a mere accusation of any offence being committed by the applicant under the provisions of the Atrocities Act, there will be a bar for grant of anticipatory bail u/S. 438 of the Code. 18. Hon'ble the Supreme Court clearly held that: "Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to any case involving arrest of any person accused of having committed any of the above offences, as defined in section 3 of the Atrocities Act." 19. It was further held in para 6 of the order as below :-- "It is undoubtedly true that section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is available to an accused in respect of offences under the Penal Code, is not available in respect of offences under the said Act. But can this be considered as violative of Article 14? The offences enumerated under the said Act fall into a separate and special class. Article 17 of the Constitution expressly deals with abolition of ‘Untouchability' and forbids its practice in any form. It also provides that enforcement of any disability arising out of ‘Untouchability' shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. The offences, therefore, which are enumerated under section 3 (1) arise out of the practice of ‘Untouchability'. It is in this context that certain special provisions have been made in the said Act, including the impugned provision under section 18 which is before us. The exclusion of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under the said Act has to be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions which give rise to such offences, and the apprehension that perpetrators of such atrocities are likely to threaten and intimidate their victims and prevent or obstruct them in the prosecution of these offenders, if the offenders are allowed to avail of anticipatory bail.......". 20. 20. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while holding that section 18 of the Atrocities Act is not ultra vires of the Constitution, held that the benefit of anticipatory bail u/S. 438 of the Code could not be availed of by an accused against whom there is an accusation involving his arrest in any offence u/S. 3 (1) of the Atrocities Act. 21. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, there is no escape and all Courts in India are bound by the law laid down in the said case. Even on facts, there is no scope to distinguish the aforesaid case, in which Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that since there is an accusation of offence involving arrest under the Atrocities Act, benefit of anticipatory bail could not be availed of by an accused on facts as well. 22. In the present case, there is an accusation either in the FIR or in the statement of the witnesses u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. involving arrest of applicants in any of the offences as defined in section 3 (1) and under different clauses of the Atrocities Act. 23. The word ‘accusation' has not been defined anywhere, but it can safely be inferred that when there is an allegation of having committed offences punishable under the Atrocities Act and arrest of the applicant is involved, bar of section 18 of the Atrocities Act will apply. 24. In the instant case, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as referred above which is binding on all Courts in India, now there is no scope to consider anticipatory bail to an accused, who is alleged to have committed any offence under the Atrocities Act. 25. After giving careful thought to this aspect of the matter and considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. & another (supra) has clearly laid down that application for anticipatory bail u/S. 438 of the Code is barred under section 18 of the Atrocities Act. As such, whenever there is an allegation for having committed an offence under the Atrocities Act, the Court cannot consider grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. As such, whenever there is an allegation for having committed an offence under the Atrocities Act, the Court cannot consider grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. No other interpretation is possible in view of the observations made by Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, laying down the law on the subject, and therefore, I am of the definite opinion that whenever there is an accusation for having committed an offence u/S. 3 (1) of the Atrocities Act, application for anticipatory bail cannot be considered. 26. This application for anticipatory bail, therefore, is not maintainable and is dismissed.