JUDGMENT : This is an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at the instance of the 2nd accused in Crime No.292/CB/PKD/2017 of Crime Branch, Palakkad (originally crime No. 240/2016 of Shornur Railway Police Station, Palakkad), challenging the order dated 01.03.2021 in Crl.M.C. No.501 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad Division, through which the appellant's application for anticipatory bail was rejected. 2. Sri. John S. Ralph and Sri. Suraj.S., the Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant ought to have been granted bail as, prima facie, no offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be established. With reference to the judgment of this Court in Sreekumar V. State of Kerala, 2008 (3) KLT 748 , it is submitted that the appellant was never arrested at the crime stage and that a person who appears on the summons is entitled to apply for bail before the Magistrate Court despite the offence being one triable exclusively by a Special Court. Reference is made to the judgment of this Court in Antony Cherian v. Purushothaman Pillai, 1987(2) KLT 125 , to contend that even in cases where the punishment provided for is one of life imprisonment, the Magistrate would be competent to consider the bail application under Section 437 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also pointed out, in this connection, that there are certain offences in the Indian Penal Code which are triable by a Magistrate for which the punishment provided for is imprisonment for life. It is contended that if the provisions of Section 437 are interpreted to mean that they place a restriction on the right of the Magistrate to grant bail when the punishment provided for is imprisonment for life, it would mean that, though the offence is triable by the Magistrate, he would not be in a position to consider an application for bail in respect of the very same offence. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is a clear bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is a clear bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for grant of anticipatory bail. She also submits that even if this Court has to consider the grant of bail, the victims also are entitled to be heard. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that one of the offences in respect of which proceedings have been initiated against the appellant, namely, the offence under Section 370(5) of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment of imprisonment for life and therefore, the learned Magistrate may not be in a position to consider the application for regular bail. She also points out the judgment of this Court in Suresh M.R and others v. State of Kerala; 2011 (3) KHC 403 to contend that in such cases even where committal proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate, that Court may not be in a position to consider the bail application. 4. Having regard to the contentions raised, I am not inclined to hold that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail especially in the light of the clear bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However there is no bar for the Court to consider an application for regular bail. In the facts of the present case, the offence is exclusively triable by a court of Session/ the Special Court. However, the matter is now pending at the stage of committal before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam as C.P. No.2/2021. The summons issued to the appellant is produced and marked as Annexure A. The appellant had never been arrested during investigation and now a final report has been filed in the matter before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam. On receipt of the summons, the appellant appeared before that court. In Antony Cherian (supra), it was held as follows:- “5. If it is said that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail in a case involving offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the discretion conferred on a Magistrate by S.437 of the Code will stand unnecessarily restricted. On receipt of the summons, the appellant appeared before that court. In Antony Cherian (supra), it was held as follows:- “5. If it is said that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail in a case involving offences punishable with imprisonment for life, the discretion conferred on a Magistrate by S.437 of the Code will stand unnecessarily restricted. Such restriction may lead to a practical consequence that in all cases (whether instituted on complaint or police report) in which offences punishable with imprisonment for life but triable by a Magistrate of the First Class are involved the Magistrate cannot exercise jurisdiction in favour of granting bail. Eg:- Ss.326, 377, 388, 394, 409, 467, 472, 474, 475 and 477 are offences punishable with imprisonment for life, but all such offences are triable by Magistrate of the First Class. Usually or atleast in most of such cases Magistrate exercise discretion in favour of granting bail. Of course, where offences punishable with imprisonment for life and triable exclusively by Court of Sessions are involved Magistrates refrain from granting bail to accused persons in such cases. The restriction imposed on a Magistrate by the legislature is that when “there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life” such person shall not be released on bail by that Magistrate.” Taking note of the law laid down in Antony Cherian (supra) and Sreekumar V (supra), I am of the view that this appeal can be disposed of permitting the appellant to move the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam, for regular bail in the light of the law laid down in Shanu v. State of Kerala, 2000 (3) KLT 452 & Sukumari v. State of Kerala, 2001 (1) KLT 22 . The judgment of this Court in Suresh M.R(supra) was rendered in different factual circumstances and does not in any manner militate against the view taken in this case. Resultantly this appeal is disposed of directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam, (where C.P. No.2/2021 is pending) to consider any application that may be filed by the appellant/petitioner for regular bail, in accordance with the law. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits or entitlement of the appellant for regular bail.