1. By way of this appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellants original accused nos.2 and 3 have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest, in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.I20 of 2019 with Vejalpur Police Station, DistrictAhmedabad (Rural) for the offences punishable under sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Atrocities Act” for short).

2. The appellants herein had approached learned 12th (adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad for being released on anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.819 of 2019, which came to be rejected by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2019. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present appeal is preferred before this Court.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of present application are as under:

3.1 The respondent no.2 here in original complainant has filed the impugned FIR on 28.02.2019 alleging that her deceased daughter Sonal was married with original accused no.1Ankit Rajput and during her short span of marriage life, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by her husband and present appellants. It is alleged in the FIR that they were demanding dowry from her. It is alleged that because of harassment caused by the accused, she has committed suicide.

4. Mr. A.V. Nair, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and there is no prima facie material to show that the incident was occurred merely on account of deceased being a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. He has contended that the deceased has love affair with her husband viz. Ankit Rajputoriginal accused no.1, who is son of the appellant no.2 and brother of the appellant no.1.

4.1. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that due to love marriage of the deceased with original accused no.1Ankit Rajput, the complainant was not happy and with a view to take revenge, the impugned FIR involving present appellants has been filed though they have not participated in the crime.

4.2. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that appellant no.1 is married and residing separately with her husband and had no such specific occasion to visit her matrimonial home where the deceased committed suicide.

4.3. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that appellant no.2 being a old woman, suffering from depression since years and she has not committed any offence alleged against her.

4.4. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that from the bare perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the appellants herein have not committed any scheduled offence of IPC, which is mandatory for invoking provisions of Atrocities Act against the present appellants.

4.5 Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that there is no ingredient of commission of offences charged against the present appellants. He has referred to various documentary evidence produced before this Court and relied upon various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. He has submitted that Section 18 of the Atrocities Act would not be applicable to this case and the amendment carried out in the Amendment Act is only qua the directions of the Apex Court to the preliminary inquiry conducted before arrest. He has further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharastra, passed in Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2018 dated 20.03.2018, present appellants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail pending the investigation and trial and the amended Section 18 of the Atrocities Act wo