JUDGMENT : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. This is an application filed on behalf of applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 197/2021 registered at Police Outpost Chilfi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (CG) for commission of offence under Sections 306, 506/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4/5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadana Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity 'the Adhiniyam of 2005'). 2. This application filed for grant of regular bail was taken up for hearing on 24.11.2021 along with Criminal Appeal No. 1011/2021, filed by co-accused persons under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act of 1989') for grant of regular bail, but on an objection being raised with regard to maintainability of this bail application in its present form, it was de-linked from Criminal Appeal No. 1011/2021, which was heard and decided on 24.11.2021. 3. Mr. Chandrabhushan Kesharwani, learned counsel for applicant would submit that present application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable. He submits that on 14.6.2021 complaint being lodged by complainant Yashoda Bai in concerned police station mentioning that her mother set herself ablaze after pouring kerosene, merg was recorded and after preliminary investigation, FIR is registered against applicant and other co-accused persons for commission of offence under Sections 306, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Adhiniyam of 2005. Applicant was arrested on 26.6.2021. Thereafter an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the Court of Sessions for grant of regular bail, which was transferred to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli for hearing. Said application came to be rejected vide order dated 15.7.2021. He submits that on the date of rejection of bail application of applicant, there was no allegation against applicant of committing any offence punishable under the provisions of the Act of 1989. Even it was a Police Inspector who investigated into report lodged by complainant till 26.8.2021. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Mungeli took over investigation only on 27.8.2021, prior to which applicant moved application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 18.9.2021 by the Additional Superintendent of Police before Special Court adding offence under Section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(zb) of the Act of 1989. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Mungeli took over investigation only on 27.8.2021, prior to which applicant moved application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 18.9.2021 by the Additional Superintendent of Police before Special Court adding offence under Section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(zb) of the Act of 1989. It is contended that as application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was considered and decided by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge and not by exclusive Special Court, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is maintainable before this Court. He submits that as per Section 14 of the Act of 1989, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court, by notification, establish an Exclusive Special Court for one or more districts, whereas in District Mungeli Exclusive Special Court is not established. Hence it is the Sessions Court which has to take cognizance of offence and try cases under the Act of 1989. Appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989 would lie only when order is passed by Exclusive Special Court. Learned counsel places his reliance on the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in Criminal Writ Public Interest Litigation No. 8/2018, parties being In Re. Provision of Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Vs. Nill, to contend that in absence of establishment of Exclusive Special Court, any case or application for grant of bail is to be considered and decided by the Sessions Court only. It is further contended that Rule 7(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short 'Rules of 1995'), as stood amended in the year 2016, mandates filing of charge sheet within a period of sixty days. In case at hand, charge sheet was not filed within sixty days. In alternate, it is submitted that applicant moved an application for conversion of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. into an appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon order of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in ABA No. 1927/2017 and Cr.A. (SJ) No. 1253/2017 wherein High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. permitted conversion of application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. into an appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon order of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in ABA No. 1927/2017 and Cr.A. (SJ) No. 1253/2017 wherein High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. permitted conversion of application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. into an appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989. He also submits that applicant himself belongs to scheduled tribe community, hence registration of offence under the Act of 1989 against applicant is not relevant at this stage. Against applicant offence under the Act of 1989 mentioned in Final Report would not be attracted. 4. Mr. Alok Nigam, learned Government Advocate for State opposes submission of learned counsel for applicant with regard to maintainability of bail application and submits that when this application came up for hearing along with Cr.A. No. 1011/2021, it was argued that charge sheet has already been filed before the Special Court, Mungeli for commission of offence under Sections 306, 506, 34 of IPC; Section 4, 5 of the Adhiniyam of 2005 and Section 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(zb) of the Act of 1989, consequently this bail application was de-linked for hearing on its maintainability. On 16.12.2021 applicant moved an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for conversion of present bail application into an appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989 on the ground that during pendency of instant bail application, charge sheet is filed before the Special Court, Mungeli on 18.9.2021. It is contended that once it came to the knowledge of applicant that offences under the provisions of the Act of 1989 are also added against him and other co-accused persons and charge sheet is filed before the Special Court, hence application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In such a situation, applicant is required to move fresh application for grant of bail before Special Court and in case of rejection of that bail application, applicant can approach this Court by filing an appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989. Applicant has not amended bail application till date by amending cause title particularly the column containing particulars of offence registered against applicant. Applicant has not amended bail application till date by amending cause title particularly the column containing particulars of offence registered against applicant. The State Government has already constituted Special Court at Mungeli to try offences under the Act of 1989; charge sheet has already been filed before the Special Court, as admitted by counsel for applicant himself, therefore, applicant had to first move an application for grant of regular bail before Special Court mentioning registration of offence against him under the relevant provisions of the Act of 1989 also. 5. Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for Complainant/Objector opposes submissions of learned counsel for applicant and submits that serious allegations have been leveled against applicant and other co-accused persons. In fact, accused persons have committed offence under Section 302 of IPC. During course of investigation, police realized that offence punishable under the Act of 1989 is also committed, therefore, investigation was handed to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mungeli who conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet before the Special Court for commission of offences under the Act of 1989 along with other offences punishable under Sections 306, 506, 34 of IPC; Section 4, 5 of the Adhiniyam of 2005. Now charge sheet is filed against applicant and other co-accused persons adding offences punishable under the Act of 1989, this bail application is not maintainable. He also submits that even after coming to know about addition of offences punishable under the Act of 1989; filing of charge sheet before Special Court, applicant did not choose to amend bail application to the effect that offence under the Act of 1989 has also been registered against applicant. Hence, application is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused case diary. 7. Perusal of application would show that in cause title and Paragraph Nos. 3 & 5.1 of application, it has been pleaded that applicant was arrested for committing alleged offence punishable under Sections 306, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 & 5 of the Adhiniyam of 2005. 8. True it is that application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, Mungeli came to be dismissed on 15.7.2021; thereafter on 24.7.2021 applicant moved instant bail application, meaning thereby instant application is filed prior to addition of offences under Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(zd) of the Act of 1989 against applicant. 8. True it is that application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, Mungeli came to be dismissed on 15.7.2021; thereafter on 24.7.2021 applicant moved instant bail application, meaning thereby instant application is filed prior to addition of offences under Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(zd) of the Act of 1989 against applicant. But the fact remains that during pendency of bail application, charge sheet against applicant and other co-accused persons was filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mungeli before the Special Court, Mungeli for commission of offences under Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(zd) of the Act of 1989, apart from the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506, 34 of IPC; Section 4, 5 of the Adhiniyam of 2005. If Investigating Agency subsequently arrived at a conclusion that applicant and other co-accused persons have also committed offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(zd) of the Act of 1989, which was not under consideration before the Court below nor pleaded in application filed before this Court, and further when charge sheet is filed before Special Court, which is notified for taking cognizance and trial of cases under the Act of 1989, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be maintainable. 9. Submission made by learned counsel for applicant relying on the judgment passed by a Full Bench of High Court of Allahabad in Criminal WPIL No. 8/2018 is misplaced. In that order the High Court considered situation which immediately arose after incorporation of Amendment Act and certain questions have been formulated for consideration, which read as under:- “A. Whether by virtue of provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 2015 the powers of the High Court under Article 226/227 or its revisional powers or the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall stand ousted? B. Whether the amendment provisions of Section 14A would apply to offenses or proceedings initiated or pending prior to 26 January 2016? C. Whether upon the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of an appeal as specified in the second proviso to Section 14(A), Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred on the High Court in terms thereof would stand revived? D. Whether the power to directly take cognizance of offenses shall be exercisable by the existing Special Courts other than the Exclusive Special Courts or Special Courts to be specified under the amended Section 14?” 10. D. Whether the power to directly take cognizance of offenses shall be exercisable by the existing Special Courts other than the Exclusive Special Courts or Special Courts to be specified under the amended Section 14?” 10. Coming to submission of learned counsel for applicant that in District Mungeli exclusive Special Court is not constituted, therefore, Additional Sessions Judge is having jurisdiction to consider application for grant of bail. 11. Section 2(bd) of the Act of 1989 defines 'exclusive special court' and Section 2(d) of the Act of 1989 defines 'special court'. The Law Makers have provided two forums under the Act of 1989; one to be 'exclusive special court' and another under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1989, according to which, if number of cases under the Act of 1989 are less, the Sessions Court to be notified as 'Special Court'. Proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act of 1989 envisages that where less number of cases under the Act of 1989 are recorded, the State Government shall, with concurrence of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court by notification, specify for such Districts, Court of Sessions to be a Special Court to try offences under the Act of 1989. Court of Sessions Judge, Mungeli is notified as 'Special Court' under Section 14 of Act of 1989 on 30.6.2017. 12. It is case of applicant himself that police after investigation filed charge sheet before Special Court for commission of offence punishable under the Act of 1989, apart from offences under Sections 306, 506, 34 of IPC; Section 4, 5 of the Adhiniyam of 2005. In such a situation, aforementioned submission of learned counsel for applicant that Exclusive Special Court is not constituted, hence Sessions Court is having jurisdiction to hear the case is not sustainable and it hereby repelled. 13. So far as submission of learned counsel for applicant with regard to conversion of present bail application into criminal appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989 is concerned, appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989 would lie only when order under challenge is passed by Special Court or exclusive special Court. Order dated 15.7.2021 rejecting application of applicant for grant of regular bail is not passed by the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, rather it is passed by the Sessions Court. Order dated 15.7.2021 rejecting application of applicant for grant of regular bail is not passed by the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, rather it is passed by the Sessions Court. Even in cause title of this application it is not mentioned that offence punishable under the Act of 1989 is also alleged against applicant. Hence, submission of learned counsel for applicant that this bail application be allowed to be converted into an appeal under Section 14A of the Act of 1989 is also not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be maintainable particularly when offences alleged against applicant includes offence punishable under Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(zd) of the Act of 1989. Accordingly, bail application is dismissed as not maintainable. 15. Applicant is at liberty to approach Special Court under the Act of 1989 before which investigating agency submitted charge sheet, for grant of regular bail. If such an application is filed by applicant, the same shall be considered and decided by Special Court strictly in accordance with law.