JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been moved by the accused-petitioner u /s. 438, Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 377/96 pending investigation under sections 341, 342, 365, 323 & 504/34 IPC as well as under section 3(1)(vii), (x) and (xi) of the SC /ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act of 1989), with the Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and have also gone through the FIR besides the investigation record and considered the same carefully. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, firstly, submitted that no offences under any of the clauses of sub-sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1989 are prima facie borne out of the FIR under investigation and so also there is no material collected as a result of investigation to hold the accused-petitioner liable for commission of any of such offences under the Act of 1989 and, at the same time, all the alleged offences punishable under the aforesaid sections of the Penal Code, being bailable, the impending arrest of the accused-petitioner is wholly unwarranted. 4. Besides, on merits also it has been contended that the accused-petitioner was at Sojat City on the date of the occurrence and that his identity, having not been established reasonably and his name being omitted from the FIR, it is not just and proper that the accused-petitioner be apprehended and arrested in the case under investigation. 5. The learned P.P. has countered all these submission made on behalf of the petitioner and further contended that the accused- petitioner has falsely taken a plea of alibi while his identity has been subsequently established as a result of consequential investigation taken on the basis of the FIR and, therefore, there being no rhyme or reason for the Investigating Officer or for the informant Dhurendra Meghwal to have falsely implicated the accused-petitioner, looking to the nature of the allegations and, besides, as is borne out of the investigation record, the accused-petitioner having been involved in not less than three more criminal cases thereafter and a complaint under section 110, Cr.P.C. also having been lodged in the Court of Addl. District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur for taking proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C., it leaves hardly any scope or justification for granting extra- ordinary relief to the accused-petitioner. 6. District Magistrate (City), Jodhpur for taking proceedings under section 110, Cr.P.C., it leaves hardly any scope or justification for granting extra- ordinary relief to the accused-petitioner. 6. At the out-set, it may be observed that the accused- petitioner, also, simultaneously challenged the legality and justification of registration and investigation of the FIR by way of invoking inherent powers of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1013/96 and the same has been rejected separately and, in this view of the fact, as regards the merits of the case, it leaves hardly any scope for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. After going through the allegations of the FIR which have been substantially substantiated in the statements of Ashok Seni, Avinash Arora, Anil Phillip, Anurag and Mahendra Meghwal, and, except Mahendra Meghwal, all the other witnesses being from different castes and members of society and being wholly disinterested against the present petitioner, since there is a prima facie case revealing commission of offences as covered by Cls. (iii), (vii), (x) and (xi) of the Act, there being embargo of Section 18 against granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner liable for commission of offences under the Act, this disabled the petitioner from being granted benefit of release on anticipatory bail. 8. As a result of investigation, though the accused-petitioner has been sub,sequently named and his identity has been already established as that of one of the two alleged accused-persons involved in the commission of the alleged offences, as a measure of precaution, the Investigation Officer is warned, in the event of the arrest of the accused-petitioner, to keep him 'Baparda' and, at the same time, while observing all the precautions thereby disabling all the witnesses of the occurrence from seeing him before an identification parade is held before any Judicial Magistrate, a test identification parade is required to be held so far, in case the accused petitioner has been falsely named and involved, this possibility can be ruled out or, otherwise, the statements and allegations of the witnesses shall stand fortified. The Investigating Officer is further directed to accord top priority to the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, if any, at the earliest. 9. With these observations, there being no merit in this petition, the same stands dismissed.Bail refused with directions. *******