JUDGMENT :

B.N. Karia, J.

1. Present appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 5060 of 2021 before the Court of learned Special Judge (Atro.), Court No. 17, Ahmedabad City 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. 11191035211221 of 2021 for the offence punishable u/s. 294(b), 506(1), 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and U/s. 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(z) and 5 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein learned Special Judge (Atro.), Court No. 17, Ahmedabad City rejected the said application on 14.07.2021.

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

3. As per the report dated 23.12.2021 of the Registrar, City Civil and Sessions Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad, notice is duly served to the respondent No. 2 but when the matter was called out, nobody appeared for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2 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 the false implication of the appellant in the FIR is manifestly attended with mala fide intention. That FIR has been lodged maliciously with an ulterior motive of harassing the appellant even though the appellant has not committed any offence and in fact the appellant has been made victim of conspiracy. The allegations levelled in the complaint do not make out any case under the Atrocities Act against the appellant and it has been registered maliciously only on account of wreaking vengeance and for satisfying personal grudge as it is evident from the record of the police station itself that the complainant is a habitual in making frivolous and false complaints. That, keeping the grudge, on account of the above complaint as well as the grudge, the impugned FIR has been filed against the appellant only with a view to taking vengeance and by way of misusing the law of Atrocity Act. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to allow present criminal appeal.

6. Opposing this prayer made by the learned advocate for the appellant, learned APP for respondent-State has submitted that the present appellant has intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate respondent No. 2 being a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. That the appellant has tried to apply his force against the respondent No. 2 to leave his house in the village, and therefore, prima facie appellant is involved in committing the offence. It is further submitted that role played by the co-accused persons, who are released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court concerned is quite different. Therefore, no benefit of parity can be granted to this appellant. Prima facie involvement of the appellant is made out by the prosecution. Hence, it was requested by learned APP appearing for the respondent-State to dismiss the criminal appeal.

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