JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. Present appellants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 728 of 2021 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Deesa u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No. 11195018211079 of 2021 with Dhanera Police Station, Banaskantha for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 294(b), 506(2), 328 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein learned Sessions Judge, Deesa rejected the said application on 07.12.2021.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appellants have preferred present criminal appeal under Section 14 of the Atrocities Act.

3. Heard learned advocate for the appellants, learned APP for the respondent-State and learned advocate for the respondent no. 2.

4. It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellants that the appellants are innocent persons and have no nexus with the present crime and no any alleged offence is made out when the complainant himself came in the field of the appellants. It is further submitted that the field of the appellants and complainant is adjacent land and both fields are on same boundary since long and there is no intention to insult by caste to the complainant. It is further submitted that no poison was found in given treatment of the complainant and now the complainant has been discharged from the hospital and all medical report are normal and chemical is not identified in the present offence. It is further submitted that they are not likely to run away in any case. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellants to allow this appeal by quashing the impugned dated 07.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 728 of 2021 by learned Sessions Judge, Deesa and release the appellants on bail in the case of their arrest in connection with the offence registered against them as prayed for.

5. From the other side, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for the respondent no. 2-complainant have strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellants and submitted that from the complaint itself, involvement of the present appellants is clearly made out by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the names of the appellants were clearly shown in the complaint registered against them by the respondent no. 2 and their participation. It is further submitted that the prosecution has rightly applied Section 328 of the IPC as the appellants administers for causing the complainant by poison or intoxicating drug with intent to cause hurt the complainant or to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Atrocities Act are clearly applied in the present case considering the facts of the present case as the complainant was intentionally intimidated and humiliated by the present appellants. It is further submitted that investigation is under progress and therefore, prayer made by the present appellants cannot be allowed by this Court. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 to dismiss this 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 averme