Anticipatory bail can be granted if no prima facie case is established, and the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocity Act does not apply without substantiated allegations.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Learned APP Mr. Joshi waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr.Trivedi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. Present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocity Act”) challenging the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha - Palanpur in Criminal Misc. Application No.1374 of 2024 whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11195010240885 of 2024 registered with Palanpur West Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 74, 351(3), 3(5) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNS”) and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Atrocities) Act.

3. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the offence, particularly as appellant No. 2 is a woman. Furthermore, no offence under the Atrocity Act is made out, and the present appellants are advocates. It is argued that none of the sections cited apply to the appellants, and there is a bar under Section 18 of the Atrocity Act, which should not be invoked as appellant No. 2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The incident allegedly took place on 5th and 6th December 2024, while the complaint was filed belatedly, 12 days after the incident. No role is attributed to the appellants, and they have not played any active role, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the alleged offence under Section 376 of the IPC or any other offence. There is no overt act on the part of the appellants. The appellants, being advocates by profession, submit that the complainant intends to file a complaint against one Natvarji @ Chako Dajuji Thakore, against whom a previous complaint had been filed but was quashed and settled by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Now, the complainant seeks to initiate proceedings against Natvarji again and has approached this Court for the same. Allegations of rape or any other offence are leveled against accused No. 3, while the allegations of a honeytrap are leveled against accused Nos. 1 and 2. However, no offence of honeytrap has been committed. An offence was previously registered against applicant No. 1, which has already been quashed. It is also submitted that the complainant has a history of filing complaints and blackmailing individuals Therefore, no custodial interrogation is required. Therefore, looking to the role of the appellant and nature of the allegations, the appellants are required to be granted anticipatory bail by imposing suitable terms and conditions.

4. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for the original complainant have vehemently opposed the present appeal and stated that there is no provision to entertain an appeal seeking anticipatory bail and hence, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal on the ground that offence is registered against the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Atrocities) Act and there is a bar under Section 18 of the Atrocity Act and therefore also, the present offence being serious one, he has requested to dismiss the present appeal. It is submitted that the complainant has no criminal antece