JUDGMENT : (1) Will an appeal lie on an order of dismissal of an application seeking anticipatory bail for an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? (2) Is there any circumstance in which an application seeking anticipatory bail in such an offence is maintainable? These are the short questions that arise for consideration in this Criminal Appeal. 2. Appellant is the second accused in Crime No.970 of 2017 of the Chavakkad Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 (i) IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). 3. An application for anticipatory bail was filed by the appellant before the court below under section 438 Cr.P.C. Based on the express statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Special Judge dismissed the application. Presently, an appeal has been preferred on the said order under Section 14A (2) of the Act. The question to be considered is whether this appeal is maintainable. 4. Section 14A (2) says that notwithstanding anything contained in sub section 3 of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the special court or the exclusive special court granting or refusing bail. Evidently, the non-obstante clause is only relating to Section 378(3) Cr.P.C alone and not to any of the provisions of the special Act. 5. Section 18 of the Act says: “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. This is an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code. When there is an express statutory bar in Section 18 of the special Act, the present enabling provision under Section 14A (2) will not override the provisions contained in Section 18. When such an application is not maintainable as per Section 18, evidently an appeal is not maintainable on an order dismissing an application seeking anticipatory bail. 7. When there is an express statutory bar in Section 18 of the special Act, the present enabling provision under Section 14A (2) will not override the provisions contained in Section 18. When such an application is not maintainable as per Section 18, evidently an appeal is not maintainable on an order dismissing an application seeking anticipatory bail. 7. It is evident from Section 18 that an application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under the Act, when it has been preferred by a person 'accused of having committed an offence under the Act'. When a person approaches the court with an application for anticipatory bail, the court dealing with such an application can go to the limited extent of examining whether the person who has approached the court 'is accused of having committed an offence under the Act' and if he is not accused of having committed an offence under the Act, it cannot be said that the application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The Special Court has jurisdiction to go to that limited extent to examine whether he 'is accused of having committed an offence under the Act'. 8. Merely by quoting a penal provision under the Act in the FIR, without incorporating the facts to show that he is accused of having committed an offence under the Act, a person cannot be deprived of his right to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Say for example, when a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe is arraigned as accused along with other accused who are not members of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, as accused of having committed an offence under the Act, it cannot be said that the said person who is a member of the scheduled caste is accused of having committed an offence under the Act. In such case, he can well maintain an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 9. At the same time, this is a case in which the appellant is accuse of having committed an offence under the Act, and hence, the statutory bar under section 18 comes into play. Therefore, an application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable in this case. It has to be noted that all the offences under the Indian Penal Code which has led to the offence under the Special Act, are bailable. Therefore, an application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable in this case. It has to be noted that all the offences under the Indian Penal Code which has led to the offence under the Special Act, are bailable. It has become non-bailable solely because of the inclusion of the offence under the special Act. In the result, this appeal is not maintainable and hence it is dismissed. In the event of surrender of the petitioner before the court below within 30 days from today, the court below shall consider and dispose of the application seeking bail that may filed by the petitioner before the court below with prior notice to the learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, on the same day itself.