ORAL ORDER

1. Present appellants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 292 of 2021 before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam 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 C.R. No.11192060210571 of 2021 with Viramgam Rural Police Station for the offence punishable u/s. 143, 146, 323, 504, 506(2) and 427 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Viramgam rejected the said application on 28.09.2021.

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

3. However notice was served to the respondent No.2, she was not remained present either in person or through an advocate to contest this criminal appeal.

4. Heard learned advocate for the appellants and learned APP for the respondent-State.

5. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the FIR is lodged under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act. As far as Section 3(1)(r) is concerned the same provides that any person not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. That no specific allegation of Atrocity is attributed to the appellants. The allegation is a very bare and general in nature, which shows that the offence of atrocity is not at all attracted qua present appellants. These allegations are made solely for the purpose of harassing the appellants and other co-accused. That since the FIR does not satisfy ingredients of the offence under Atrocities Act, the anticipatory bail application is maintainable. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellants to allow present criminal appeal.

6. From the other side, learned APP for the respondent -State has strongly opposed the prayer made by the appellants referring the case papers and argued that prima facie involvement of the present appellants is clearly made out by the prosecution. That incident was occurred on account of the dispute as the husband of the complainant used some abusive word with the accused- Melabhai. Therefore, this incident was taken place. That no anticipatory bail can be granted to such a person as they are prima facie involved in the offence. Referring Section 18 of the Act, it is submitted that no prayer in a form of anticipatory bail can be granted by this court in favour of the present appellants. Ultimately, learned APP for the State has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

7. As the respondent No.2 was remained absent, no arguments was advanced.

8. Having considered the facts of the case as well as arguments of learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that FIR bearing C.R. No.11192060210571 of 2021 registered with Viramgam Rural Police Station for the offence punishable u/s. 143, 146, 323, 504, 506(2) and 427 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of the of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989. As per the case of the complainant, she belongs to Scheduled Caste. It appears that at around 11:00 a.m. in the morning while she was returning after the natures call, one Velabhai Fulabhai Bakhudiya of her village was standing along with Maheshbhai Velabhai Bakhudiya, Melabha Velabhai Bakhudiya, Rasilaben w/o Melabhai Bakhudiya, Dharsinhbhai Bhagwanbhai Bekhudiya, Hamirbhai Dharsinhbhai Bakhudiya, Jayantibhai Ranchoddbhai Bakhudiya, w/o Jayantibhai and Vijabhai Jayantibhai Bakhudiya. They all asked where is Chandu “caste slang” and when the complainant asked why they are inquiring about him, they told that “caste slang” you just remain silent. Further, Melabhai and wife Rasilaben gave her a sl