IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.]USTICE JAWAD RAHIM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7696/2010 BETWEEN: RAJENDRA, S/O SARJERAO DESI-IAPANDE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 0CC: BUSINESS, R/O BAN DIGAWAD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIVAKUAMR.S.BADAWADAGI, ADV.,) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINAYAK KULKARNI, HCGP.,) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.147/2010 OF GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 1 ORDER By this petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent police to release him in the event of his arrest during investigation in Crime No.147/10 which is under investigation for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), apart from the charges for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner had applied to the sessions court for grant of anticipatory bail which was rejected on the ground of maintainability. 3. Learned HCGP opposes grant of bail. 4. It is not in dispute that on the basis of a complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and the petitioner is not yet arrested. Therefore, the provision of Section 18 of the Act applies which makes the provision of Section438, Cr.P.C. inapplicable if the applicant is facing i / charge for the offence under the Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of this court in the case of N.BBUNGARAKOPPA & OTHERS vs. STAE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2002 AIR 3308, submits there is no total bar for entertaining a petition under Section 438, I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel is right so far as the legal permissibility is concerned, but in the decision itself, the thrust is to ascertain whether the allegation in the complaint attracts the provisions of the Act. If, on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, we find it does not make out a prima fade case for proceeding against the accused for the offence punishable under the Act, then the bar will not apply. If the allegations make out a prima facie case attracting the provisions of the Act, then the bar under Section 18 would apply. In the circumstances, unless the petitioner is able to point out that no case is made out for any offence punishable under the Act, the petition is not maintainable. 6. However, the relief that could be granted to the petitioner is do direct him to surrender before the designated court and apply for regular bail. If he surrenders and files such application, then the designated judge is directed to dispose of the application on the same day, or possibly on the next day after hearing the prosecution. In other words, it is preferable that the application is disposed of on the same day it is filed. With this observation, the petition is disposed of. Sd/ JUDGE BS/vgh*