JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application for cancellation of an order of anticipatory bail as granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in a case Under section 147, 452, 427 and 149 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/18, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(in short 'the act') 2. It is alleged by the learned Advocate for the complainant-petitioner that it was not a fit case for granting of anticipatory bail more so in view of the pronouncement made by the Supreme court in State of M.P. and another v. Ram Krishna Balothia and another, reported in 1995 (3) SCC 221 where it was held inter alia that non-applicability of provisions of the anticipatory bail Under section 338 Criminal Procedure Code in respect of offence Under section 3 of the Act was not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution having regard to the historical background of the legislation and the social condition in which the legislation has been implemented in India. It was held in this case by the Supreme Court that offences enumerated Under section 3 pertain to a separate and special class and denial of anticipatory bail in the circumstances was not unreasonable where the legislature in its wisdom has made departure from the established procedure. That apart, provisions relating to anticipatory bail do not form an integral part of Article 21 of the constitution and the right to get anticipatory bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. By various pronouncements made by our High court in many of its judgments, the latest of which was in Rakesh and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1995 R.C.C. 329 , it was observed that the Court must consider the evidence gathered during investigation to see if a prima facie case does exist against an accused, relating to the provisions of Section 3 and 18 of the act, and in case, prima facie, no case exists against an accused, then, benefit of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code could be extended. In the latest of these decisions, as stated above, the Supreme Court pronouncement in State of M.P. and another v. Ram Krishan Balothia(ibid) was taken note of but a distinction was sought to be made that there was no absolute bar in this regard regarding granting of anticipatory bail provided of course, no prima facie case was made out and the ingredients constituting offence either Under section 3 or Section 18 of the act were not made out. 3. in the present case, the police has already submitted a final report submitting inter alia before the Court that no prima facie case has been established. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused respondents that it was more or less private grouse and that one Pushkar Dutt Joshi was instrumental in making out a fabricated case through his own henchmen, against the accused persons. 5. After the police submitted a final report, it is for the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction to accept or reject the same. I am given to understand that the final report was not submitted before the apposite court of competent jurisdiction but It was submitted before a different court. Be that as it may, if there is a protest petition against the final report, the de facto complainant on the basis of treating his protest petition as a petition of complaint, can pursue the matter further and as and when the court of competent jurisdiction takes cognizance of the same, the court can proceed in accordance with law but at the present stage, this court does not find out any case made out for cancellation of the order of anticipatory bail. The application stands dismissed. Application Dismissed. *******