JUDGMENT Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J. - The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter referred to as "SC/ST Act" ) being aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), District Bhopal in Bail Application No.81/2020, whereby the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C only by saying that as per Section 18 of SC/ST Act, the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the Court passed the order without considering the merits of the case, whether offence of any section of the SC/ST Act is made out prima facie against the applicant or not. Without considering this fact, simply dismissed the application on the basis of mentioning the offence under Section 3(1)(da) (dha) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act in the FIR. Since no case is made out under any provisions of the SC/ST Act against the applicant; therefore, Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable in these circumstances. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. No doubt, recently Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India and others, (2020) AIR SC 1036 , discussed the scope of the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to Section 18 and 18A (newly amended) of the SC/ST Act. 4. Paragraph 10 of the judgment is reproduced as hereunder: 10. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the complainant does not made out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions. 5. Perused the impugned order. No doubt, learned Special Judge (Atrocities) did not discuss the prima facie facts of the case and not concluded whether prima facie case against the applicant is made out in relation to any offence of the provisions of SC/ST Act or not. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions. 5. Perused the impugned order. No doubt, learned Special Judge (Atrocities) did not discuss the prima facie facts of the case and not concluded whether prima facie case against the applicant is made out in relation to any offence of the provisions of SC/ST Act or not. Therefore, this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction should not discuss the merits of the case first time at this stage, which has not been discussed by the subordinate Court, because opportunity of filing the appeal will be lost by the party. 6. In these circumstances, this Court set aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bhopal and remanded this matter back to the Special Court for deciding it on merit with a conclusion that whether prima facie any offence of any Section of SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant or not and thereafter decide the applicability of Section 18 and newly amended 18A of the SC/ST Act. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands disposed of.