The main legal point established in the judgment is 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 the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.

ORDER :

1. The appellants have filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 48 of 2022 before the Court of learned Incharge Additional Sessions Judge, Aravalli-Modasa 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. 11188003210464 of 2021 with Bhiloda Police Station, Dist: Aravalli for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(2(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocity Act”), the learned Incharge Additional Sessions Judge, Aravalli-Modasa has rejected the said application on 27.01.2022.

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

3. Heard learned advocate for the appellants; learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and learned APP for the respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants have submitted that the appellants are innocent persons and wrongly involved in the present crime in question. That, there is no direct or indirect role attributed to the present appellants. That, the appellants have nothing to do with the present crime in question, and their names have wrongly been dragged with a view to achieve the goal of the respondent No.2. The allegations against the appellants cannot be said to have been substantiated in as much as there is no sufficient material found against the present appellants. That, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. That, looking to the allegations levelled in the FIR, prima facie, no ingredients of any offence much less the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and offence under Atrocity Act are attracted. 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 No.1 -State and learned advocate for the respondent no.2 have opposed the prayer made by the appellants and submitted that prima facie involvement of the appellants is established by the prosecution. That, using abusive language and derogatory words against the complainant, offence was clearly made out by the appellants. It was further submitted that Section 8 restricts to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent No.1- State to dismiss present appeal.

6. Having considered the facts of the case, police papers and submissions made by learned advocate for the appellants; learned advocate for the respondent no.2 as well as learned APP for the respondent No.1-State, it appears that offence being registered vide C.R. No. 11188003210464 of 2021 with Bhiloda Police Station, Dist: Aravalli for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act. There is no averments made to attracts Section 3(2)(va) of the Atricity Act. From the injury certificate issued on the name of Satishkumar Jagdishkumar Tabiyar produced on record, it appears that injury on left side CLW over left eye and treatment thereof was given to him. No name of any of the accused was given in the history by the injured to the doctor. No specific allegations are made in the complaint to attract the provisions of Atrocity Act. Considering the role allegedly made in the complaint by the respondent no.2, it appears that there is no serious injury caused to the complainant.

7. Section 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as under :

(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that