ORDER

1. Vide order dated 24.03.2023, we had granted ad interim protection to the petitioner.

2. While granting ad interim protection the three factors weighed with us, those were:-

(i) That it was a cross case arising out of civil dispute.

(ii) Prima facie there was no material to show that the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were invoked.

(iii) That the incident was alleged to have been taken place on 17.02.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 23.02.2022, as such there was a delay of six days in lodging the FIR.

3. We have heard Shri Atul Babasaheb Dakh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel for the respondent/State.

4. Shri Pande, learned counsel, vehemently opposes the petition.

5. However, as stated hereinabove, we, prima facie, find that the petitioner's custodial interrogation would not be necessary for the offenes alleged with.

6. One more factor that needs to be noted is that the High Court, by an order running into 13 pages, has rejected the application. This Court has consistently right from the case of Niranjan Singh and Another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, (1980) 2 SCC