The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient material to make out a prima facie case for the commission of alleged offenses under the Atrocities Act, Black Magic Act, and IPC in the context of granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

S.M.Gavhane, J. - Heard, appeal is admitted. Notice after admission is made returnable forthwith. Appeal is taken up for final hearing with the consent of both the sides.

2. The appellants who are respectively accused No.2,4 and 9 against whom and ten (10) others crime no. I186/ 2018 has been registered in Kannad Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 354B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), under Section 3(1),(2) and (3) of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ''Black Magic Act'') and under Section 3 (i)(l)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Atrocities Act") and whose application bearing No. 2194 of 2018 for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected by the District Judge 5 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by order dated 24/12/2018 have assailed the said order by this appeal under Section 14A( 2) of the Atrocities Act.

3. By order dated 08/01/2019 an interim protection that, "meanwhile, no coercive action/steps be taken against the appellants-accused, was granted and the same has been continued from time to time.

4. Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.2,4 and 9 has submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 07/12/2018, but the complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2/ complainant on 15/12/2018. The respondent No.2 is in the habit of filing false cases. It is submitted that no specific role is attributed to applicants as regards offence under Section 354 of the IPC and they have been implicated on the statement of co accused which is in admissible in evidence. The conduct of the respondent No.2 is material and it is required to be seen. Two of the accused, namely, Rambhau Shinde and Namdeo Shinde respectively accused Nos.1 and 3 in the present crime have been granted regular bail. The custodial interrogation of the appellants/accused is not necessary. The investigation is almost completed. Caste of the complainant/respondent No.2 is not mentioned in the FIR. Mere mentioning of caste of respondent No.2 is not enough. Allegations must be made that knowing that the respondent No.2/ complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe the accused who are not members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes have outraged modesty of respondent No.2 and committed the alleged offences under the Atrocities Act. According to the learned counsel for the appellants offence under the Black Magic Act is not attracted. It is submitted that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that application for anticipatory bail is not tenable is not correct and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have granted anticipatory bail application of the appellants. Therefore, according to learned counsel order under challenge is not sustainable and said order be set aside and appellants be granted anticipatory bail by allowing their application by allowing this appeal.

5. To support his submissions the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Vilas Pandurang Pawar and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 2012 SC 3316.

(ii) Prakash Revchand Budhrani and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.1233 of 2018 decided on 24.10.2018.

(iii) Atendra Singh Rawat vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.7295 of 2018 decided on 11.10.2018.

(iv) Virendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cri.L.J.2899

(v) Dhankesh S/o Bachubhai Lathiya vs. State of Gujarat in R/Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2018 decided on 05/09/2018.

(vi) Devjibhai Ganeshbhai Patel (Kathrotiya) vs. State of Gujrat in R/Criminal Appeal No.1200 of 2018 decided on 14/09/2018

(vii) Shri. Nagesh @ Nagesh Reddy, s/o. Venkatareddy,