ORDER : 1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘the Act, 1989’) against order dated 22-04-2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Mahasamund (C.G.) (in bail application No.316/2024) whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.66/2024 registered at Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that the prosecutrix has lodged a written report to the police on 31-03-2024 stating in it that she is working as contract Physical Instructor at Swami Atmanand School, District Sakti. In the month of September 2023 she got acquainted with appellant who was posted as Clerk at Municipal Council Arang. They started talking with each other by mobile phone. He showed his intimacy with her and proposed her. On 10-11-2023 he took her to Shane Punjab Dhaba, Tumgaon and took a room there. When she refused to stay in the room, he threatened her and forced her to stay in the room. He allured her that he will marry with her and then he made physical relation with her forcefully. He made her obscene video from his mobile phone. Thereafter, he made physical relation with her on various occasions at various places. He repeated his act on 02-01-2024 at Starwood hotel, Raipur and on 17-12-2023 at Shane Punjab Dhaba. Subsequently, when she came to know that the appellant is already married, then she started raising objection then the appellant abused her with name of her caste and refused to marry with her. She informed the incident to her friend and then lodged the report. On the report lodged by the prosecutrix the FIR under Section 376(2)(n), 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 has been registered and the appellant is apprehending his arrest in the aforementioned offence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence. The prosecutrix is a major lady and was having love affair with him. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence. The prosecutrix is a major lady and was having love affair with him. In order to extort money from the appellant she developed physical relation with the appellant and pressurized him to give divorce to his wife and to marry with her and when the appellant refused to do so, she has lodged the report. Initially the offence has been registered under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The police has filed the charge sheet showing the appellant as absconding without following due procedure provided under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the prosecutrix is in habit of lodging false report and she has already lodged a report on 03-05-2023 against one Sanket Dharmkar for the same nature of offence and with the same manner of alleged act of rape upon her. He would also submit that from the mobile chats of the appellant with the prosecutrix it is apparent that she wants to extort money from the appellant and only to create the offence she first transferred the amount in the account of the appellant through mobile transaction and immediately thereafter asked the appellant to refund it which the appellant did everytime, which clearly reveals from the document of mobile chats and the bank account details of the appellant. She being the major lady and employed as a teacher fully known about the allurment or consequence of physical relation with a person, that too when in the earlier occasion she was being refused for marriage by the accused of the earlier report made by the prosecutrix. When she had already suffered by the act, it cannot be expected that she could be allured for the same act in the second time. There is no evidence that the appellant has prepared obscene video of the prosecutrix and got it viral in the mobile phone of others. He would also submit that the last incident of rape was alleged to be occurred on 02-01-2024, but the FIR has been lodged on 31-03-2024 and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the report. There is no evidence that the appellant has prepared obscene video of the prosecutrix and got it viral in the mobile phone of others. He would also submit that the last incident of rape was alleged to be occurred on 02-01-2024, but the FIR has been lodged on 31-03-2024 and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the report. It is also submitted by him that the offence alleged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 is not attracted against the present appellant as the offence has not been committed on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, the provisions under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 would not be attracted and merely mentioning of offence under the Act, 1989 in the case would not be sufficient to dislodge the appellant to take benefit of anticipatory bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. There should be prima facie material available to show that the appellant has committed the offence as mentioned under the Act, 1989. Therefore, the appellant may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the FIR has been registered for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. However, at the time of filing of charge sheet the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 has been added. He has read over the contents of the FIR in support of his contention. He would further submit that the prosecutrix was being sexually exploited by the appellant on the pretext of marriage and her consent was obtained by alluring her that he will marry with her by suppressing the fact that he is already married. In view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 the anticipatory bail application of the appellant is not maintainable and even otherwise, in view of the allegations made by the prosecutrix against the appellant his anticipatory bail application has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial Court and therefore, his appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix/objector would submit that the appellant intended to sexually exploit the prosecutrix from the very beginning. 5. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix/objector would submit that the appellant intended to sexually exploit the prosecutrix from the very beginning. He developed physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and despite her objection he made physical relation with her and continued with the same act by alluring her of marriage and also by giving threatening to her. He would also submit that the appellant has made obscene video of the prosecutrix which has got viral in the mobile phone and she came into knowledge of the said obscene video on 12-06-2024 through one of her wellwisher and thereafter she immediately lodged the report to the police to take action in the matter. He would also submit that the appellant has created false documents of the receipts of the hotels where he stayed on the relevant dates which shows his intention to influence the investigation and to come out from the offence. He has further submitted that from the transaction of the amount as shown in the mobile chattings it is apparent that the appellant himself had extorted money from the prosecutrix and there was transaction through account of the prosecutrix to the account of the appellant on 31-12- 2023 and 02-03-2024. He has also submitted that even after the prosecutrix has lodged a report on the earlier point of time against Sanket Dharmkar for the same nature of allegation, but it does not mean that the present report lodged by the prosecutrix against the appellant is false because she has been exploited by both the persons who were friends and she has lodged the report against the offence committed by them. The appellant is still absconding and is not entitled to claim anticipatory bail. Further, in view of the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and his appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the appeal as well as the case diary. 7. True it is that when the offence is alleged against any person by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 application for grant of anticipatory bail is not to be entertained. 7. True it is that when the offence is alleged against any person by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community attracting the provisions of the Act, 1989 application for grant of anticipatory bail is not to be entertained. However, there is no absolute bar in considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail, if the applicant succeeds to make out a case that after taking into consideration the entire allegation as reflected in the FIR the provisions of the Act, 1989 would not be attracted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prithvi Raj Chouhan Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 has observed in paras 11, 32 and 33 as under:- “11. Concerning the applicability of provisions of Section 438 CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under the 1989 Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the 1989 Act, the bar created by Section 18 and 18-A(i) shall not apply. We have clarified this aspect while deciding the review petitions. 32. As far as the provision of Section 18-A and anticipatory bail is concerned, the judgment of Mishra, J. has stated that in cases where no prima facie materials exist warranting arrest in a complaint, the court has the inherent power to direct a pre-arrest bail. 33. I would only add a caveat with the observation and emphasis that while considering any application seeking pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests; i.e. that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further also that if such orders are not made in those cases, the result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law. I consider such stringent terms, otherwise contrary to the philosophy of bail, absolutely essential, because a liberal use of the power to grant pre-arrest bail would defeat the intention of Parliament.” 8. In the matter of Dinesh alias Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 15 as under:- “15. In the matter of Dinesh alias Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 15 as under:- “15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not the case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of a Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application……..” 9. The contents of the FIR mention that the appellant has developed physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. The first incident of alleged rape is said to have been committed on 10-11-2023 and at that time the appellant showed his intimacy and proposed her, thereafter, by giving assurance of marriage with her he made physical relation with her and thereafter continued in making physical relation with her upto 17-12-2023. It is only when the appellant refused to marry with her the report has been lodged. Had the appellant been committed the offence on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled Caste community he would not have given assurance of marriage to her. She being a major educated lady engaged in teaching profession would know consequence of physical relation with a person. The FIR has been registered for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC only. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and allegation in the FIR made by the prosecutrix, in the opinion of this Court offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 would not be attracted against the present appellant for considering the anticipatory bail application and therefore, it will fall within the exceptional cases. 10. Further, from nature of allegation leveled by the prosecutrix against the appellant and the delay in lodging the report, transaction of money between them and also that the prosecutrix has earlier lodged the report of same nature against one Sanket Dharmkar, the length of physical relation of the prosecutrix with the appellant would make the appellant entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. The allegation made by the prosecutrix that the appellant has got viral her obscene video is not supported by her contention and there is no allegation in her complaint made to the police on 13-06-2024 that the appellant has made viral the said obscene video and it is only reported that on 12-06-2024 one of her wellwisher has received her obscene video in mobile phone, but who has sent it in his mobile phone has not been disclosed. Further, in the said report dated 13-06-2024 she made allegation against one Ghanshyam Sahu. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order dated 22-04-2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Mahasamund (C.G.) in bail application No.316/2024 is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :- (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 12. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order.