A P THAKER, J.

1. By way of this appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant accused has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in case of her arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.I-31 of 2017 with Dediyapada Police Station, District-Narmada for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 (2) of IPC, Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(1)(r)(f) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The appellant herein had approached learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla for being released on anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.58 of 2019, which came to be rejected by the impugned judgment and order dated 1.3.2019. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present appeal is preferred before this Court.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the appellant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3.1 Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a lady and is bed-ridden sing long and she is mentally retarded. He further submitted that entire story as narrated in the complaint is false and got up with an intention to harass the appellant and respondent no.2 has filed present complaint as a counter-blast to the FIR filed by the appellant side. He further submitted that present appellant had filed a quashing petition before this Court, wherein this Court was pleased to direct that no coercive steps may be taken against the present appellant. Therefore, the trial against the present appellant is pending while it is concluded in respect of other accused and all of them are acquitted from all the charges.

3.2 Learned advocate for the appellant on instructions states that the appellant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of appellant accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.

6. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigating papers and as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, this Court has considered following aspects:-

(i) Accused-present appellant is a lady.

(ii) Only allegation against the present appellant is that she was present with other accused at the time of commission of offence.

(iii) The alleged offence is of 12.6.2017, which is prior to the amendment of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This being a substantive and penal law, provisions prevailing as on the date of the offence will apply.

Without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

7. Learned APP appearing for the State has heavily relied upon the amended Section 18(A) of the Atrocity Act, which has been added by the legislature by Amendment Act of 2018. The said Section reads as under:-

“18A. (1) For the purposes of this Act,-

(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or

(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against