IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Atrocities Act, 1989 – Public view – to attract Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) as well as 3(2)(va) as alleged by the prosecution, intention on the part of the accused persons to intimate with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view is must.
(2) Atrocities Act, 1989 – Basic ingredients – In absence of any basic ingredients of the Act, no case is made out as alleged against the present appellant.

ORDER

B.N. Karia, J.—However, notice was duly served to the respondent No. 2, but nobody was appeared to contest this Criminal Appeal for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

2. Present appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 49 of 2022 before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge & In-charge Special Judge (Atrocity), Bharuch u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No. 11199027211600 of 2021 with Jambusar Police Station, Dist. Bharuch for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocity Act”) wherein, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge & In-charge Special Judge (Atrocity), Bharuch rejected the said application vide order dated 21.1.2022.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred said appeal u/s. 14A of the Atrocity Act.

4. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that appellant is falsely implicated in the said offence by the investigating agency and no prima facie case is made out against the appellant. That, appellant is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged offence. That, police has falsely implicated the appellant in the present case. That, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch has not appreciated the legal facts of the record and also not appreciated the legal position of the law and dismissed the application. That, appellant has not played any direct or indirect role in the alleged offence. That, appellant is falsely roped in the alleged offence by the complainant merely on the basis of suspicion. That, appellant was elected as member of Taluka Panchayat and to merely seek revenge and wreak havoc on the appellant, he has been involved in the alleged offence. That, appellant along with the other elected members of the Taluka Panchayat made an application against the relatives of the complainant before the District Collector, Bharuch stating that the complainant as well as the other relatives are habitual to making complaint under the provisions of Atrocity Act, 1989. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to enlarge the present appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.

6. From the other side, learned APP for the respondent-State has opposed the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that complaint itself shows that prima facie case is made out against the present appellant. That, no prayer in nature of anticipatory bail can be granted to the present appellant, considering his involvement established by the prosecution. That, Section 18A of the Act clearly bars to grant of anticipatory bail as prayed by the present appellant. Therefore, no prayer may be granted by this Court for enlarging them on anticipatory bail. Ultimately, learned APP for the State has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

7. Having considered the facts of the case, police papers and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that offence was registered with Jambusar Police Station being C.R. No. 11199027211600 of 2021 for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(va) of the Atrocity Act. Further it appears from the record that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were released on regular bail by the learned Sessions Court.

8. If we consider the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in MANU/SC/0275/2018 : 2018(6) SCC 454, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is n