Anticipatory bail should be denied when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in serious offenses, especially to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure a fair investigation.

ORDER :

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice for the respective respondents.

2. By way of the present application under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocity Act”), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being I- C.R.No.11822022240704 of 2024 registered with Vijalpor Police Station, Navsari for the punishable under Sections 115(2), 352 , 351(3) , 109(1) , 189(2) , 190 and 191 of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNS ”) and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(a), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vii), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a dispute has been ongoing for the past two years concerning open land located near the Dholikui Temple. On October 23, 2024, at 8:15 AM, the accused, in collaboration with co-accused individuals, made caste-based remarks and hurled filthy abuses at the complainant and his wife. They also assaulted the complainant with weapons, causing injuries to his head and hand. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the accused persons.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant appeared and argued that the applicant has been falsely and illegally implicated in the present offense and has not committed the alleged crime. He submitted that the applicantaccused has been faithfully serving as a police employee in Navsari district for many years and enjoys a good reputation in society. He further stated that the main accused in this case, namely (1) Satshankar alias Munna Ramcharitra Parasnath Mishra, (2) Chhotiben, widow of Ramcharitra Parasnath Mishra, (3) Vidyavati Ramcharitra Mishra, and (4) Dhruv Satshankar Mishra, have been released on regular bail and thus, the applicant may also be granted bail on the ground of parity. He further argued that there is no prima facie case against the applicant is that there has been a land dispute between the original complainant and his family members, and that the applicant being a police employee, has been falsely implicated in this offense to exert undue pressure. He submitted that if the applicant is arrested, it would cause harm to his dignity, honor, and reputation. The applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation. He has no criminal history and is a permanent resident of Navsari district, with no likelihood of absconding or fleeing. He has, therefore, requested that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the Hon’ble Court.

5. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State and learned advocate appearing for the complainant have submitted that there has been a dispute over open land near Dholikui between the complainant, his wife, and the applicant along with other accused for the past two years. Out of this enmity, the applicant and other accused hurled abusive and caste-based remarks at the complainant and his wife, assaulted the complainant, his wife, and other people in the locality, and attacked them with a bat, iron pipe, and wooden sticks, causing serious injuries to the complainant’s head and hand and to the complainant’s wife’s head, thereby committing the offense. The applicant remained absconding after committing the crime and did not cooperate with the investigation, which is still ongoing. Based on the documents submitted, it appears that the applicant has a prima facie involvement in the offense. If granted anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may attempt to influence or intimidate the complainant and witnesses through inducements or threats. Therefore, it has been requested that the present anticipatory bail application be rejected.

6. The Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence and as to whether prima facie it appears that accused has committed an offence, is required to be considered. So far as the anti