Cr.MP(M) No. 76 of 2011. 11.02.2011 Present: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Notice. Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent State. The petitioner is accused of commission of offences under Sections 322, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC & ST Act). The case has been registered against him vide FIR No. 6 of 2011, dated 29.1.2011 at Police Station, Jubbal, District Shimla. He has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Admittedly, the petitioner is yet to be arrested by the police. However, he has made the following averments vide para-4 of the petition:- “ That since it is a case registered under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest. The petitioner hereby surrenders himself before this Hon’ble Court.” Thus, in essence prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is in the nature of pre-arrest bail except for the averments that according to him, he is surrendering …2… before this Court. On this premises and by placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court, reported as Baldev Singh Bhardwaj Vs. State of H.P., 2003 (2) Shimla Law Cases 55, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to treat him in custody of this Court and thus, treat the present petition as one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and admit him to regular bail. However, I am afraid that such a course is not open to this Court in view of the express prohibition under Section 18 of SC & ST Act which debars application of the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case of the present nature. Furthermore, it is settled that what cannot be achieved directly can also not to be achieved indirectly. Such a practice has also been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Even otherwise, in case a person accused of an offence under the SC & ST Act, surrenders before the Court, it does not automatically mean that he is entitled for indulgence of the Court to straightway release him on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., without affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent State to apprise the Court about the facts of the case. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable. (V.K. Sharma) 11th February, 2011 Vacation Judge (kck)