JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—Since all the aforesaid bail petitions arise out of the same F.I.R. therefore, these are disposed of by this single order. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the fore-fathers of complainant Amar Singh had constructed a Room to carry on the Smithy work on a portion of the land of accused-petitioner Nain Singh. In February, 1998, said room was demolished by said Nain Singh and his family members without the consent of said Amar Singh. When the complainant enquired from Nain Singh as to why he had demolished his room, he was informed that the site was to be converted into a field. The complainant out of ignorance and also due to fear of Nain Singh let the matter end there. However, Nain Singh instigated the other bail petitioners and one Bhoop Singh against the complainant and his family members and also won over three families of the brother-hood of the complainant. In February, 1999, Police recovered illicit timber from the possession of petitioner Nain Singh. Said Nain Singh held the complainant responsible for the seizure of timber by the police. In this regard, a meeting of the villagers was held and in the meeting the complainant was penalised to give one He-Goat and a sum of Rs. 100/- for complaining against Nain Singh. The complainant refused to oblige. Thereafter, the complainant and his family members who are Lohar and, therefore Scheduled Caste, have been continuously debarred by the accused-petitioners and said Bhoop Singh who all are Brahmins by Caste from entering the Temple of the local Diety and also from taking water from the Tap. As and when his family members attempted to go to the temple or to bring the water from the Tank, they are prevented by the accused from doing so because of their being Lohars by caste. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, case F.I.R. No. 45/99 dated 6.7.1999 under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been registered against the accused petitioners and said Bhoop Singh and is presently at the stage of the investigation. The accused-petitioners have applied for grant of anticipatory bail to them on the common ground that the allegations levelled against them are false and have been levelled with a view to implicate them in a false case. 3. The accused-petitioners have applied for grant of anticipatory bail to them on the common ground that the allegations levelled against them are false and have been levelled with a view to implicate them in a false case. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the bail petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 4. A perusal of the record prima facie reveal that the complainant is Lohar by Caste, hence belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The accused-petitioners are Sawaran by caste. The evidence so far collected by the Police prima facie make out that the accused-petitioners are not permitting complainant Amar Singh and his family members to enter the temple of the local Diety i.e. Temple of Lord Shiva and the Diety known as Mahasu. Earlier, he used to beat the Drum at the time of the Pooja in the said Temple, but now he is not being permitted to do even that. The complainant and his family members are also not being permitted to take water from the village Tap. It also emerges from the records that the accused are threatening even the prosecution witnesses including those who are Brahmins by Caste that in case they lent any support to the complainant, they will also be socially boycotted. Thus, the record, prima facie reveals the involvement of the accused petitioners in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act. 5. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides that nothing in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the present applications have been filed, shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act. Thus, grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure to a person accused of the commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of the said Act is barred and thus, such a person cannot be admitted to bail under the provisions of Section 438 ibid. 6. As a result, the accused petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail, therefore, all these applications merit dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed. -