JUDGMENT 1. - Meaningful question that arises in this bail application is that Whether the expression 'on an accusation of having committed an offence' in Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes/Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989') does mean that mere registration of the case under the Act of 1989 would ipso facto attracts the Prohibition of Section 18 of the Act of 1989." 2. Section 18 of Act of 1989 reads thus: "Nothing in section 438 of the Cr.P.C.: shall apply in relation to any Act involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this act." 3. In Ramesh Prasad Bhanja & Ors. v. State of Orissa, (1996 Cr.LJ. 2743 ), it was indicated that an "accusation of having committed an offence under this act does not mean that mere registration of the case under the act would ipso facto attracts the prohibition contained in section 18 of the act. If was observed that the opinion of the police regarding the nature of alleged offence is neither final nor conclusive. Merely because a case is mechanically registered under the act, the provision of section 438 of the Code cannot be said to be inapplicable in each and every case. If the allegations make out a prima-facie case under section 3 or for that matter section 4 and 5 of the Act, the jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 4-38 is definitely ousted. It was further observed that where however the allegations do not make out any prima-facie case punishable under any of the provisions of the Act the bar under section 18 is inapplicable and the provisions 438 can be availed of. 4. In Vinod Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., ( 1990(1) RLR 44 ) this court has held that the application under 438 Cr.P.C. can be entertained by the court of Sessions Judge in a case registered under the Act of 1989. 5. In Munir Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (1991 RCC 588 ), it was propounded that after going through the case diary if no prima facie case is made out, benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be given to the petitioner in a case registered under the Act of 1989. 6. In Ram Niwas Raliya & Ors. 5. In Munir Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (1991 RCC 588 ), it was propounded that after going through the case diary if no prima facie case is made out, benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be given to the petitioner in a case registered under the Act of 1989. 6. In Ram Niwas Raliya & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1991 (1) RLR 203 ), it was held that the bar to entertain bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. can only be attracted where prima-facie atrocity on a member of SC/ST is established. 7. In Giridhari and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 25 ), it was indicated that section 18 of the Act does not create a complete bar for anticipatory bail. However, it is the duty of the court that the provisions of Section 18 are not misused judicial scrutiny should be made to find out if prima-facie case under the Act of 1989 is made out or not? 8. In Rakesh.& Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (RLR 1995(1) 20) , this court had again an occasion to interpret section 18 of the Act of 1989. It was held that while disposing of the application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. the court can examine the facts of the case to find out whether the offence under the Act has been committed or not? 9. Now I shall proceed to adumbrate the rival submissions. 10. As already stated, Section 18 of the Act of 1989 mandates that the provisions contained in section 438 Cr.P.C. shall not apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person of an "accusation of having committed an offence under this Act." 11. In Wharton's Lav/Lexicon fourteenth edition, the word "accusation" has been defined as formal charging of any person with a crime. If the police registers a case under the Act of 1989 after formally charging of a person with a crime, the opinion of police regarding the nature of alleged offence is neither final nor conclusive. In Wharton's Lav/Lexicon fourteenth edition, the word "accusation" has been defined as formal charging of any person with a crime. If the police registers a case under the Act of 1989 after formally charging of a person with a crime, the opinion of police regarding the nature of alleged offence is neither final nor conclusive. Mere registration of case under the Act of 1989 does not itself debar the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge at the time of hearing of anticipatory bail application has power to closely scrutinise the case diary and if from the material no prima-facie case punishable under the Act of 1989 is made out, benefit under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be allowed to the person apprehending arrest. 12. In the instant matter initially a case was registered only for offences under Sections 323, 504 & 451 IPC against the petitioners, but the police subsequently added offence under Section 3 of the Act 1989. 13. After having closely scrutinised the material on record I am of the considered opinion that no prima-facie case under Section 3 of the Act 1989 is made out against the petitioners. Hence, i am inclined to accept this bail application. 14. The SHO/Arresting Authority/IO, Police Station Bassi District Jaipur in FIR No. 298/99 is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners namely Smt. Kailashi wife of Ram Karan and Ram Karan son of Sheonarain shall be released on bail provided each one of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surey in the like amount to his satisfiaction on the following conditions : (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Application allowed. *******