ORDER : 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1989”), against the order dated 31.05.2023, passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (C.G.), whereby the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that victim, who is teacher in school lodged a report against appellant, who is the Headmaster in the same school stating therein that appellant caught hold of her hand with ill intention, in the month of October, 2022. The said act of applicant was informed by victim to her husband and he was advised not to commit such act. On 25.02.2023 in the lunch session, when children studying in the school went for taking their lunch and the victim was sitting alone, appellant came there and with ill intention put his hand on her breast. Aggrieved with the act of appellant, she left the school premises and due to fear has not disclosed the incident to any other person and continuously went to school up to 02.03.2023. Victim after gathering courage has informed about the incident to her husband and other family members and her staff in the school. Based on the report, FIR was registered on 11.03.2023 for offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. As Victim belonged to member of scheduled tribe and police during investigation seized caste certificate of complainant offences under Section 3 (2) (v a) of the Act of 1989 was added. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that based on the report of victim, initially offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. was registered and he was arrested and thereafter, appellant submitted an application for grant of bail under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed and he was directed to be released on bail by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband vide order dated 13.03.2023. He further submits that once the bail application submitted by appellant under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, unless and until the bail is cancelled or there is an order of the Court based on the proceeding initiated by the investigating agency no arrest can be made. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in case of Pradeep Ram Vs. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision in case of Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2019) 17 SCC 326 . 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that this appeal is filed against the order passed by the Special Court rejecting the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.. Learned Court below has taken note of the provisions under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 and dismissed the application as during the course of investigation it revealed that appellant has also committed the offence under the Act of 1989 and therefore, the bar as provided under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 is attracted and there is no error in the order passed by the learned Court below. He contended that though on the report initially FIR was registered for offence only under Section 354 of I.P.C., however, after collecting the material in particular caste certificate, the offence under Section 3 (2) (v a) of the Act of 1989 is also attracted and the provision under Section 18 would apply to the facts of the case. 5. Pursuant to the notice issued, victim/complainant appeared before this Court on 21.08.2023 and raised objection in grant of bail to the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on records and the case diary. 7. Undisputedly appellant and victim are teachers and are posted in the same school. Written report was lodged by victim on 11.03.2023 specifically pleading the nature of the act committed. In the contents of the complaint, it is appearing that complainant has also mentioned her surname to be Dhruw. Her surname is appearing in all the documents. FIR was registered on 11.03.2023. During the course of investigation, statement of victim under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Victim who is member of scheduled tribe community, produced her caste certificate to be of Gond caste, thereafter, the offence under Section 3 (2) (v a) of the Act of 1989 was added. Information was given to Special Court, Raipur as also to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband. Case diary also bears the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband dated 12.05.2023. Information was given to Special Court, Raipur as also to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband. Case diary also bears the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband dated 12.05.2023. Perusal of the aforementioned order would show that Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband vide its memo dated 11.05.2023 has sought permission for arresting the appellant in connection with Crime No. 42 of 2023 for offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (v a) of the Act of 1989. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband taking note of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prahalad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 as also the decision in case of Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed & Ors., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474 has allowed the application and canceled the bail under Section 437 (5) of Cr.P.C. and granted permission to take appellant in custody. 8. In this appeal prayer is for setting aside the order (Annexure P-2), which is an order passed in application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The order cancelling bail of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 12.05.2023 is not put to challenge. 9. Perusal of the material available in the case diary would show that offence alleged against appellant is under Section 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v a) of the Act of 1989. Provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1989 bars application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 considering the applicability of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the cases under the Act of 1989 taking note of its earlier decision has observed in Para 7 & 8, which reads as under :- “7. This Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 795 , has observed thus: “10. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. This Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 795 , has observed thus: “10. The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.” 8. This Court in Shakuntla Devi v. Baljinder Singh, (2014) 15 SCC 521 , has observed thus: 4. The High Court has not given any finding in the impugned order that an offence under the aforesaid Act is not made out against the respondent and has granted anticipatory bail, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act as well as the aforesaid decision of this Court in Vilas Pandurang Pawar case, (2012) 8 SCC 795 . Hence, without going into the merits of the allegations made against the respondent, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent.” 11. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in view of the provision under Section 18 of the Act of 1989. 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant placing reliance upon the decision in case of Pradeep Ram (supra) is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court after detailed analysis of issue has held thus :- “66. We, however, have to decide the issue as per law irrespective of the stand taken by CBI. 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant placing reliance upon the decision in case of Pradeep Ram (supra) is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court after detailed analysis of issue has held thus :- “66. We, however, have to decide the issue as per law irrespective of the stand taken by CBI. We may notice the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge NIA, Ranchi, which is to the following effect: - “………25.06.2018 On strength of issued production warrant Superintend Chatra Jail, Chatra produced accused namely Pradeep Ram @ Pradeep verma S/o Devki Ram, R/o Village. Winglat, P.S. Tandwa, District-Chatra. Let accused Pradeep Ram remanded in the case and sent to B.M.C. Jail, Ranchi to be produced on 26.06.2018. Learned Spl.P.P. is present. Issued Custody warrant. Dictated Sd/- Illegible Spl. Judge(NIA) ...” 67. The Special Judge in his order has neither referred to Section 309 nor Section 167 under which the accused was remanded. When the Court has power to pass a particular order, non-mention of provision of law or wrong mention of provision of law is inconsequential. As held above, the special Judge could have only exercised power under Section 309(2), hence, the remand order dated 25.06.2018 has to be treated as remand order under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C. The special Judge being empowered to remand the accused under Section 309(2) in the facts of the present case, there is no illegality in the remand order dated 25.06.2018 when the accused was remanded to the judicial custody. 66. We, thus, do not find any error in the order dated 25.06.2018 but for the reasons as indicated above. The High Court, thus, committed error in holding that the order of remand dated 25.06.2018 was in exercise of power under Section 167 Cr.P.C. We, however, hold that the remand order dated 25.06.2018 was in exercise of power under Section 309(2). The remand order is upheld for the reasons as indicated above.” 13. The order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate permitting investigating agency to take appellant in custody vide order dated 12.05.2023 is not put to challenge, hence, the submission of learned counsel for appellant that without there being request by investigating agency and the order of Court, appellant cannot be arrested, is perverse to the material available in case diary. 14. The order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate permitting investigating agency to take appellant in custody vide order dated 12.05.2023 is not put to challenge, hence, the submission of learned counsel for appellant that without there being request by investigating agency and the order of Court, appellant cannot be arrested, is perverse to the material available in case diary. 14. For the forgoing discussions made here-in-above, I do not find any merits in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.