The central legal point established in the judgment is the proper interpretation and application of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, particularly in relation to the eligibility for anticipatory bail and the absence of specific allegations required by the Act.

ORDER :

1. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has produced the report of the Vigilance Cell, Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Development, Gandhinagar, which is taken on record. As per the report, respondent No.2 herein is not a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, and therefore, recommended to cancel the Certificate No.ST/96/2005 dated 04.06.2005 in favour of the respondent No.2.

2. Present appellants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 536 of 2021 before the Court of learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha-Palanpur 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 I- C.R. No.57 of 2018 with Danta Police Station, Dist- Banaskantha for the offence punishable u/s. 324, 337, 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 294(b) and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha-Palanpur rejected the said application on 31.07.2021.

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

4. Heard learned advocate for the appellants, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State.

5. It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellants that present FIR is filed with a view to harass and tarnish the image of the appellants. That no ingredients of any of the alleged offence as stated in the FIR are satisfied and appellants have not uttered any such word to the complainant nor they have inflicted any injury. It is further submitted that according to charges levelled, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with an intent to humiliate in any place within public view. That no where in the complaint, it is mentioned that the appellants-accused were not a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or humiliated the complainant within public view. That accused No.1-Hiteshkumar @ Bakaji Babuji Thakore is released on regular bail by the learned Sessions Court, Palanpur. In support of his arguments, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has relied upon the judgment reported in 2006 (3) SCC 257. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate appearing for the appellants to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 536 of 2021 before the Court of learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha-Palanpur and requested to allow present criminal appeal.

6. From the other side, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 as well as learned APP appearing for the respondent-State have strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate appearing for appellants and submitted that from the complaint itself, prima facie case is established by the prosecution involving the present appellant in committing the offence as alleged in the complaint. That father of the complainant was seriously injured by the accused No.1, and thereafter, all the appellants, with deadly weapons, entered in the house of the complainant and abused/insulted the caste of the complainant with threatening the complainant to commit the murder. That from the papers, it clearly established by the prosecution that appellants are involved in the offence. It is further submitted that caste certificate issued by the Government is still not cancelled by the Government only recommendation made by the committee can not be treated that respondent No.2 is not a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Ultimately, it is requested by both of them to dismiss the present appeal.

7. If we consider the judg