JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. The appellant has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 42 of 2022 before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No. II-3210 of 2017 with Chandkheda Police Station, Dist: Ahmedabad for the offence punishable u/s. 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(2-va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocity Act") as well as u/s. 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act wherein, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar has rejected the said application on 13.01.2022.

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

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

4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent person and wrongly involved in the present crime in question. That, there is no direct or indirect role attributed to the present appellant. That, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has not received any simple or grievous injury. That, the appellant has nothing to do with the present crime in question, and his name has wrongly been dragged with a view to achieve the goal of the respondent No. 2. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to enlarge the present appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.

5. From the other side, learned APP for the respondent No. 1 -State has opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that prima facie involvement of the appellant is established by the prosecution. Referring the contents of the complaint, it was submitted that threat was given by the complainant to withdraw the complaint lodged against the wife of Jigar Shah and Jigar Shah himself otherwise dire consequences would be faced by the complainant as he would be murdered within a period of 24 hours. It was further submitted that after hearing the shouting of the complainant, appellant ran from the place on their vehicles. Thereafter, the complainant was standing there, a friend of the Mr. Jigar Shah namely Biren Soni i.e., present appellant came there, at that time, brother of the complainant Mr. Gaurang Asodiya was standing with him, appellant informed the complainant to settle the complaint lodged against the sister Ankita Soni otherwise they would not be permitted to stay in Chandkheda. That, using abusive language and derogatory words against the complainant, offence was clearly made out by the appellant. It was further submitted that Section 8 restricts to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent No. 1- State to dismiss present appeal.

6. It appears that service affidavit is filed by the appellant through Makwana Sanjaykumar who states on oath that respondent no. 2 is served with the notice on 02.02.2022. However, today, when the matter was called, none was appeared for and on behalf of the respondent no. 2. Thus, no arguments are advanced on the side of the respondent no. 2 in this appeal.

7. Having considered the facts of the case, police papers and submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that the alleged incident was taken place on 24th October 2017 at about 21.30. There is a delay 20 hours in registration of the FIR. A complaint came to be registered on 25th October 2017 at 05.00 hours and no plausible explanation was given by the complainant for the said delay. From the complaint, it appears that he has not received any simple or grievous injuries because of any threat whatsoever. From the contents of the FIR, it appears that in order to settle the complaint given by Jignesh Shah, complainant h