JUDGMENT :

B.N. KARIA, J.

1. The appellant preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 230 of 2021 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No. 11193062210558 of 2021 with Dungar Police Station, Dist: Amreli for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 324, 325, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula rejected the said application on 03.12.2021.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred present appeal u/s. 14A of the Atrocities Act.

3. Notice issued by this Court has been duly served to the respondent no. 2 as per the report dated 10.01.2022 made by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Amreli. Though, today, when the matter was called out, none was present for and on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to assist this court in the present appeal.

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

5. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. That, looking to the FIR and allegations made therein, no prima facie offence has been made out against him. That, due to political rivalry among the members of the panchayat, false and frivolous complaint has been filed against the appellant as he belongs to other political group. That, if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie, they do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the appellant. That, the applicant has not participated in occurrence of the incident. That, the version as alleged by the complainant is highly doubtful and there are serious doubts with regard to the credibility of the version of the complainant. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of rejecting the prayer of bail by the appellant and release the appellant on bail.

6. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant. That, the appellant is involved in the serious offence and therefore, the learned lower court has rejected the request of the appellant to release him on bail. Referring to the complaint, learned APP has submitted that the provisions of Atrocities are clearly applicable in the facts of the present case as complainant was humiliated and insulted by the present appellant in a public place with a knowledge, and therefore, no lenient view may be taken by this Court to grant the regular bail. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss the present appeal.

7. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears from the complaint that appellant has not abused the complainant by his caste name in any place within public view nor intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with any intent to humiliate the complainant of his caste in any place within public view.

8. In the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531, it was held that according to Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocity Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view.

9. It also appears from the report submitted by the Investigating Officer dated 25.11.2021 requesting to add Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR that complain