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 on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.

ORAL ORDER

1. Present appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 438 of 2020 before the Court of learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhachau-Kachchh u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No.11993010200858 of 2020 for the offence punishable u/s. 143, 447, 294(B) and 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhachau-Kachchh rejected the said application on 15.01.2021.

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

3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent person and has not committed any alleged offence and appellant is not connected in any manner whatsoever with the alleged commission of offence. That as alleged in the FIR the dispute between the parties is in respect of possession of a land. That the complainant has put criminal machinery in motion with a view to pressurize the accused and family members and also the appellant, being a lady member, is dragged into it. It is further submitted that learned court below erred by not considering the correct facts where even by going through FIR itself the intention to falsely implicate the present appellant can be seen whereby totally exaggerated and vague allegations are levelled and the appellant has not acted in any such manner as alleged in the FIR. That the complainant has levelled false allegations and there is no specific role attributed to appellant, only general and vague allegations are levelled against them. It is further submitted that present appellant was protected by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2021 and co- accused persons are also enlarged on bail by the court below. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to allow present criminal appeal.

5. From the other side, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 as well as learned APP appearing for the respondent-State have strongly and vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that appellant has encroached the land and threatened the respondent No.2 for dire consequences. That the accused persons are head strong persons and even today they are not permitting the respondent No.2 to cultivate the land, though the land was given to the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 01.07.2019 and 07.10.2020. Learned advocate has referred such letter. It is further submitted that video recording of the footage is also lying with the respondent No.2 when the appellant with her relatives came to threaten the respondent No.2 and abused about his caste. It is also submitted by learned APP for the respondent-State that scope of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in granting of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that when an offence is registered against the accused persons under the provisions of Atrocities Act, no court shall entertain in an application for anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the evidence and other material on record is limited and court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. That with intention to humiliate the respondent No.2, threat was given by the accused person and abusive words were spoken by the appellant. That charge-sheet is filed against the remaining accused persons of the offence. Therefore, no prayer may be granted by this Court for enlarging her on anticipatory bail. Ultimately, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned APP for the State ha