Farad Continuation Sheet No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2586 of 2007 (Sudarshan Suradkar ..vs.. State & 2 ) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for applicant's Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for R-3 A. P.P. for R-1 & 2 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 11, 2008. Heard. This is an application under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola whereby the learned Sessions Judge admitted the respondent no.3 to anticipatory bail under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure when respondent no.3's involvement was indicated in the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2] Learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed the matter in his order and has considered the bar under section 18 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He has come to the conclusion that no crime could be said to have been committed under the Atrocities Act. Learned counsel for the applicant may be right in submitting that the learned Sessions Judge could have been more restrained in his approach in the matter and should not have reached such a conclusion at the stage of the proceedings which was before him. Learned counsel for the applicant is also right in submitting that the challenge to the order is principally aimed at discouraging such a practice of flouting express bar under section 18 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. It is hoped that the learned Judges in the Courts of Sessions who hear such applications would be circumspect in the matter and would carefully consider all pros and cons and would give effect to the bar under section 18 enacted by legislature. All the same, it cannot be said that if the court prima facie finds that an offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Act is not at all made out, by mere reference to a section of the Act the court must hold its hands. It may however, be added that certifying that a person has not committed such an offence at the stage when investigation is in progress, is not exactly desirable. This should set at rest the apprehension of the learned counsel for applicant and would obviate quashing the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that his client would appear before the court of Sessions on 28.11.2008 though the summons has not yet been received, or earlier if the summons is received, and apply for grant of regular bail which the learned Presiding Officer would undoubtedly consider on the same date. With these observations the application is disposed of. JUDGE smp.