JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. Present appellants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 783 of 2021 before the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocity) & 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Ahmedabad 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. 11204017210334 of 2021 with Chaklashi Police Station, Dist. Kheda for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocity Act") wherein, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge & Special Atrocity Judge, Nadiad rejected the said application vide order dated 29.7.2021.

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

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent persons and are falsely implicated in the alleged offence. That, the complaint filed by the complainant with prejudicial mind and with a view to harass the appellants. That, no offence whatsoever have been established which attracts the sections of Atrocity Act. That, the incident was occurred on 18.7.2021 at about 7.15 in the evening and FIR was lodged on 19.7.2021 at about 21.15 in the night and there was no any explanation coming in FIR for late filing of the FIR which itself speaks that no incident as alleged was taken place. That, alleged incident was taken place in society whereas, learned Special Atrocity Court observed that alleged incident was taken place outside the society. That, respondent No. 2 has used his weapon of Atrocity against the present appellants. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellants to enlarge the present appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest.

5. From the other side, learned APP for the respondent -State as well as learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 have opposed the prayer made by the appellants and submitted that complaint itself shows that prima facie case is made out against the present appellants by the prosecution. That, appellant No. 1 insulted with intention to the complainant many of times i.e. on 16th July, 2021 & 18th July, 2021. That, threat was given by the appellants to kill them by Dhariya. That, offence was committed by the present appellants with intend to humiliate respondent No. 2, who is member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, in any place within the public view. That, no prayer in nature of anticipatory bail can be granted to the present appellants, considering their involvement made by the prosecution. That Section 18A of the Act clearly bars to grant of anticipatory bail as prayed by the present appellants. Therefore, no prayer may be granted by this Court for enlarging them on anticipatory bail. Ultimately, learned APP for the State as well as learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 have requested to dismiss the present appeal.

6. 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 allega