1. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short) at the instance of the appellant – original accused for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-28 of 2019 registered with B-Division Police Station, Kutch (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act.

2. It is contended that apprehending his arrest, the appellant preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 312 of 2019 before the Trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.4.2019 by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj- Kutch.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that informant Gitaben, wife of Vinodbhai Solanki has lodged the FIR against one Kaushalyaben, her husband, her daughter, her younger son, her son-in-law and one Fatehdan Gadhavi alleging that her husband has committed suicide and he wrote a suicide note, wherein he has named all these persons as responsible for his commission of suicide. It also reveals from the contents of the FIR that there was some dispute between Kaushalyaben and the deceased and Kaushalyaben has lodged one complaint against the deceased and for that purpose, some settlement was going on. It also reveals that in the suicide note, there is also name of one PSI who has registered the FIR against the deceased.

4. It is contended by the present appellant that he is not involved in any manner in the offence and the allegation against him is vague and false. It is contended that the appellant is innocent and is a member of Madhapar, Junavas Gram Panchayat and that there is some dispute between the parties and for that, he has no role. He has prayed to allow this appeal.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar Gadhavi for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent No.1- State and learned advocate Ms. Bhavika Kotecha who has been appointed by High Court Legal Services Committee for respondent No.2- original complainant.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Jigar Gadhavi for the appellant has stated the same facts which are stated in the memo of the appeal and has prayed to allow the appeal by relying upon the following decisions:-

(1) In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. The State Rep. By its Inspector of Police, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1550 of 2018 on 4.12.2018 by the Supreme Court;

(2) In the case of Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2019 on 18.1.2019 by the Supreme Court;

(3) In the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002)5 SCC 371;

(4) In the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra pradesh and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531;

(5) In the case of Kaminiben Nitinbhai Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Appeal No.679 of 2019 on 9.4.2019 by this Court;

(6) In the case of Abhi Dineshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2019 on 10.4.2019 by this Court.

(7) In the case of A.K. Chaudhary and others Vs. The State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2005 GLH (3) 444.

7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the State has vehemently opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant and has stated that at present, no mens rea or knowledge is required to be considered and in this case, prima facie, Atrocity Act is applicable and therefore, under Section 18-A of the Atrocity Act, present appeal for anticipatory bail of the appellant may be dismissed. She has also contended that the suicide note was sent to the FSL for handwriting opinion, wherein it has been stated that the handwriting of the suicide note is of the deceased. She has also contended that there was constant harassment to the deceased for settlement regarding previous litigation. She has prayed to dismiss the appeal and has stated that whatever decisions cited b