JUDGMENT :

1. From the cause list, it appears that notice was duly served to respondent No.2 but, when the matter was called out nobody was appeared to assist the Court.

2. From the record, it appears that Registry has received letter from learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dated 25th January, 2022 along with report of the Superintendent of learned 10th Additional Sessions Court, Surat confirming that notice was duly served to the respondent No.2 as per the endorsement made by ASI, Varachha Police Station, Surat.

3. Present appellants filed Criminal Misc. Application No.6433 of 2021 before the Court of learned 10th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No.11210060212819 of 2021 with Varachha Police Station, Dist. Surat Rural for the offence punishable u/s. 498(A), 323, 114, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s.3(2)(5-a), 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocity Act") wherein, learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat rejected the said application vide order dated 1.11.2021.

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

5. Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellants and learned APP for the respondent-State.

6. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that appellants are totally innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in the said offence. That, present case is nothing but a matrimonial dispute between husband and a wife, who separately lived at Mumbai and there is no involvement of the present appellants without and sharing any domestic relations with other family member, including the present appellants. In support of arguments learned advocate for the appellants has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Avinashbhai Prabhudas Satapara v. State of Gujarat passed Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2020; (2) decision of Delhi High Court in case of Danishkhan @ Sahil v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) passed in Bail Application No. 3497 of 2020 (3) decision of this Court in case of Vishal Nanchanbhai Suthar v. State of Gujarat passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 20040 of 2021(4) decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Others reported in Writ Petition (C)No. 1015 of 2018. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellants to enlarge the present appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest.

7. Learned APP for the respondent State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellants and submitted that looking to the investigating papers, involvement of the present appellants has clearly established by the prosecution. Learned APP has referred particularly last para of the complaint and submitted that instigation was given by the present appellants to the accused No.1-husband and he was insulted by her caste mainly that she was belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.

8. She has referred statements of brother and parents of respondent No.2 recorded by the in vestigating official during the investigation and submitted that they have also supported the say of the complainant as present appellants being family members of the husband of the complainant were giving physical and mental cruelty to her. Complainant was deserted from her matrimonial home. That, clear allegations are made against present appellants and therefore, prima facie involvement of the present appellants in the alleged offence was established by the prosecution Therefore, learned APP for the State has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

9. If we consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018(6)