JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. Present appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 724 of 2021 before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhota Udepur u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No. 11184004210237 of 2021 with Kadwal Police Station, Chhota Udepur for the offence punishable u/s. 366, 376(2)(n), 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhota Udepur rejected the said application on 23.11.2021.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appellant has preferred present appeal under Section 14(A) of the Atrocities Act.

3. However notice was duly served to the first informant, she was not remained present either in person or through an advocate to contest this criminal 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 person and has not committed any alleged offence and appellant is not connected in any manner whatsoever with the alleged commission of offence. That, FIR is false and vexatious and is filed in gross abuse of process of criminal law against the present appellant. That name of the present appellant is not there in the FIR. Name of the appellant was transpired from the statement of the original accused and as per the law, statement before the Investigating Officer is not admissible in the court of law. That appellant has never abused nor threatened the complainant or any other person and the allegation to that effect in the impugned FIR is vague and false and just in order to harass the family of the accused No. 1, the present appellant has been arraigned as the accused. That, present appellant is unnecessarily dragged into the present offence. That, the appellant is the lady accused and aged about 31 years old. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that co-accused persons have been released on bail by this Court. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to allow present criminal appeal.

6. From the other side, learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that prima facie, offence was clearly made out against the present appellant. Therefore, no prayer may be granted by this Court for enlarging her on anticipatory bail. Ultimately, learned APP for the State has requested to dismiss the present appeal. As the respondent No. 2 remained absent, no arguments was advanced.

7. 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) SCC 454, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. View taken by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pankaj D. Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. From the averments made in the complaint, basic ingredients of the offence, as alleged are missing in the complaint. Merely any particular word alleging someone caste would not involve the present appellant in the offence. There are no specific allegations made by the complainant against the present appellant in his complaint of committing any offence under the provisions of Sections 3(2)(5)(a), 3(g), 3(p), 3(r), 3(s)(z)(c) & u/s. 8 of the Atrocity Act.

8. In the case of Union of India v. State of Maharashtra in Review Petition (Cri.) No. 228 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018, it was opined that direction nos.(iii) and (iv) issued b