JUDGMENT : 1. These are the application for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with various FIRs, the details of which are narrated herein below. It is noted that in these FIRs, provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Atrocities Act' for short) are also invoked along with other general penal provisions. 3. Whether the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail or not is the question which can be decided on the merits of the matter. However in view of the provision of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act, the first issue which needs to be addressed is, whether these applications can at all be considered on merits, since the provisions of the Atrocities Act are invoked in the FIRs in question. 4. On the above wider/preliminary issue, learned advocates are heard at length. Learned advocates for the applicants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned advocates for the complainants have addressed the Court at length. The provisions of the Atrocities Act and various judgments are put to the notice of the Court. 5. Learned advocates for the applicants have jointly submitted that, though the provision of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act creates a bar in entertaining an application for anticipatory bail, duty is cast on the Court to verify and find out as to whether an offence under the Atrocities Act has been prima facie made out or not. It is submitted that for this limited purpose also, the scrutiny has to be made by the Court and rejecting these applications as not maintainable, would result in negating that scrutiny and disowning that duty by the Court. Learned advocates have submitted that in the cases in hand, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that any of the applicants has done anything to any of the complainants or the victim to intentionally insult him or to intimidate him either in public or otherwise because of his caste. It is submitted that on the contrary, there is misuse of the Atrocities Act against the applicants for the reasons wholly attributable to the complainants. It is submitted that on the contrary, there is misuse of the Atrocities Act against the applicants for the reasons wholly attributable to the complainants. It is submitted that even prima facie, no offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act is made out and therefore this Court can and should consider these applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in spite of the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795 . 6. Learned advocates for the complainants have vehemently submitted that, it is not open to this Court to embark upon the inquiry, as to whether any prima facie offence is made out or not. It is submitted that, that would negate the very provision of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pravinchandra N. Solanki versus State of Gujarat recorded on Criminal Reference No.1 of 2011 dated 02.12.2011. Apart from other submissions, reliance is also placed on the provision in Section 8 of the Atrocities Act with regard to presumption as to offences. It is submitted that these applications be dismissed as not maintainable. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these applications on merits. However he has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar (supra) and has submitted that, it cannot be disputed that, a duty is cast on the Court to verify and find out whether an offence under Section 3 of the Atrocities Act has been prima facie made out. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, it transpires that the effect and scope of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act needs to be ascertained first. 8.1 The Division Bench of this Court, while answering a Reference in the case of Pravinchandra Solanki (supra), has held as under. “15. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, it transpires that the effect and scope of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act needs to be ascertained first. 8.1 The Division Bench of this Court, while answering a Reference in the case of Pravinchandra Solanki (supra), has held as under. “15. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the Questions referred to us as under: Answer to Question No.1: A person who is facing accusation of having committed an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot legally invoke provisions of Section-438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in view of specific bar contained under Section-18 of the Atrocities Act. Answer to Question No.2 : A Court exercising powers under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, cannot grant anticipatory bail under Section-438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in favour of a person who is facing accusation of having committed an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 in view of a specific bar contained in Section-18 of the Atrocities Act.” 8.2 However in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar (supra), the view is otherwise. Para 9 of the said decision reads as under. “9. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.” 8.3 On conjoint consideration of the above, this Court finds that, it is the decision of the Supreme Court of India which would prevail over that of the Division Bench of this Court. Further, the decision of the Supreme Court of India is subsequent in point of time and thus the decision of the Division Bench of this Court cannot be termed to be per incurrium either but is impliedly overruled. Therefore it would not be necessary to refer the matter to the Division Bench or the Larger Bench. Further, the decision of the Supreme Court of India is subsequent in point of time and thus the decision of the Division Bench of this Court cannot be termed to be per incurrium either but is impliedly overruled. Therefore it would not be necessary to refer the matter to the Division Bench or the Larger Bench. It is the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court of India which should therefore be followed. It is also noted that, the co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in view of the subsequent development of law as noted above, have, in number of cases, entertained the applications for anticipatory bail, even in the cases where the provisions of the Atrocities Act are invoked. Few of such decisions/orders are as under. (i) Order dated 16.10.2014 recorded on Criminal Misc. Application No. 15780 of 2014 with Criminal Misc. Application No. 15787 of 2014. (ii) Order dated 05.11.2014 recorded on Criminal Misc. Application No. 16349 of 2014. 9. In view of above it is held that, in the cases where the provision of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are alleged to have been violated, before rejecting an application for anticipatory bail as not maintainable, it is the duty of the Court and therefore the Court has to see as to whether an offence under Section 3 of the said Act has prima facie been made out or not. For this limited inquiry also, very strict standards should be applied by the Court against the accused and in favour of the complainant/victim. After applying such standard, if on facts it is found that the offence under the Atrocities Act is prima facie not made out, then such an application needs to be considered on merits. It may happen that, on merits, the applicant may not be entitled to anticipatory bail, but even to reject such an application on merits, such an application has to be accepted as maintainable first. It is this exercise which needs to be undertaken by the Court as mandated by the Supreme Court of India, as noted above. 10. It is noted that, the above exercise is done by this Court in the following glaring facts. For this purpose, the narration as emerging from each complaint is noted, in brief, as under. 11. The applicants of Criminal Misc. 10. It is noted that, the above exercise is done by this Court in the following glaring facts. For this purpose, the narration as emerging from each complaint is noted, in brief, as under. 11. The applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.12577 of 2016 and 13077 of 2016 are two of the total three accused named in the FIR being C.R.- I No.05 of 2016 registered with the Liliya Police Station, District : Amreli. It is for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(IV) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 7 & 9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. 11.1 The complainant is residing at village : Liliya, District : Amreli. It is also a Taluka Headquarter. On 29.03.2016, the underground drainage line at Liliya was blocked. The Executive Engineer at Amreli instructed the Field Officers to do needful. In turn, the Field Officers searched for any solution where the manual scavenging is not required. On inquiry, it was found that the adjoining Taluka - Damnagar had a tanker with vacuum pressure facility (owned by the Local Authority). The driver of the said tanker was asked by the Authorities to reach the adjoining Taluka – Liliya – where the blockage was to be cleared. The driver was also asked to come with two labourers. The driver knew one Babubhai, who was contacted. He was told that Rs.400/- labour charges shall be paid if he is willing. He agreed. The said Babubhai also went with his friend Rajubhai, who also was to be paid Rs.400/- labour charges. Thus as per the instructions of his higher Authorities, the driver went with two labourers to the site. The suction was made mechanically and the job was over at the first place. The tanker thereafter went to the second spot near the S.T. Stand. The main hole was opened by one of the two labourers (Babubhai), the gas came out with heavy pressure, the said person fainted. On seeing this, the driver rushed to help him. He also got fainted. Both were taken to the hospital. The first person (Babubhai) died. The driver (Hareshbhai) recovered. Accidental death was immediately reported to the police. The main hole was opened by one of the two labourers (Babubhai), the gas came out with heavy pressure, the said person fainted. On seeing this, the driver rushed to help him. He also got fainted. Both were taken to the hospital. The first person (Babubhai) died. The driver (Hareshbhai) recovered. Accidental death was immediately reported to the police. 11.2 Two days thereafter, the father of the deceased, in continuation of his earlier information to the police about accidental death of his son (Babubhai), has filed this FIR inter alia complaining that, the Executive Engineer, who from the District Headquarter gave instruction to clean the blockage, an employee of one of the private contractor, who showed the way that the vacuum cleaner can be asked for from the Damnagar Municipality and the driver of the said vacuum cleaner vehicle, who also was hospitalised – these three persons are responsible for the death of his son and therefore these three persons are named as accused in the FIR. The deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste and that is how the provisions of the Atrocities Act are also invoked. It is this FIR, which is before the Court. 12. The applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.20058 of 2016 are the accused in the FIR being C.R.- I No.88 of 2016 registered with the Una Police Station, District : Gir Somnath. It is for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 506(2) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(1)10 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 12.1 The complainant is an advocate. On 27.04.2016, auction of the Government land was conducted on the instructions of the District Revenue Authorities. The land was earlier encroached by the complainant and his father, the said encroachment was earlier removed by the Authorities. Thereafter, the land was put to auction. The successful bidder and the witnesses to the panchnama of the said auction process are the accused. The complainant has said that the accused assaulted him, etc. Since the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, the provisions of the Atrocities Act are also invoked. Interestingly, the successful bidder also belongs to Scheduled Caste. Thereafter, the land was put to auction. The successful bidder and the witnesses to the panchnama of the said auction process are the accused. The complainant has said that the accused assaulted him, etc. Since the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, the provisions of the Atrocities Act are also invoked. Interestingly, the successful bidder also belongs to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, he is not named in this FIR, but on that very day, at that very time, one more FIR is filed by the wife of the present complainant that the said successful bidder had molested the wife of the complainant. 12.2 To defend the possession of the said land, the father of the complainant had even approached this Court earlier by filing petition being Special Civil Application No.20056 of 2015 which was withdrawn by him on 22.12.2015. It was stated that, the said petition was not pressed with a liberty to avail other remedy to challenge the order of the Mamlatdar. The order of the Mamlatdar is not the subject matter, nor the auction proceedings is the subject matter. 13. The applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.18957 of 2016 are the accused in the FIR being C.R.- I No.56 of 2016 registered with the Gomtipur Police Station, Ahmedabad City. t is for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 454, 354, 506(2), 504 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is also invoked in the matter. 13.1 The complainant is a lady who is working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Maninagar Police Station (Ahmedabad Police Commissionerate) and claims that she is residing at House No.10, Kagdapith Police Quarters, Ahmedabad. 13.2 Her complaint is that, she has some other property also, where the immediate neighbours are Muslims. There is open space/passage in between. On the said passage the complainant has the door. Now even the said neighbour is also putting shutter, which according to the complainant would prejudice her property. It is also alleged that, electric meter, etc., is also broken/taken. It is also alleged that she was molested. The FIR is dated 13.06.2016. The incident is claimed to have occurred on 12.11.2015. She had given complaint to the police at the relevant time also. It is also alleged that, electric meter, etc., is also broken/taken. It is also alleged that she was molested. The FIR is dated 13.06.2016. The incident is claimed to have occurred on 12.11.2015. She had given complaint to the police at the relevant time also. The Police Inspector had examined the said complaint and found that it was a false complaint and that it was given just to arm twist the applicants in the civil dispute. The report in that regard, dated 29.03.2016 by the Police Inspector of Gomtipur Police Station, Ahmedabad City was also given. The statement of the complainant (dated 12.11.2015) before the police Authorities qua the incident in question is also on record. In substance it is to the effect that, since the police Authorities had assured that the accused would not put the door on the disputed side, she does not intend to pursue the complaint. In substance, according to the complainant, the interim injunction was thus obtained by the police Authorities, in her favour, independent of the civil litigation, and therefore she was satisfied. 14. The applicants of Criminal Misc. Application No.26220 of 2016 are the accused in the FIR being C.R.- I No.44 of 2016 registered with the 'B' Division Police Station, Surendranagar. It is for the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 326, 148, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. Subsequently Sections 504 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code be added. 14.1 On 20.07.2016, demonstrations were held against the atrocities on Dalits in the State of Gujarat, more particularly in response to the incident at Una. There was also a call of Gujarat Bandh. After the rally and submission of the representation to the Collector, Surendranagar, the crowd had disbursed. Since there was Bandh, shops and markets were closed, the complainant and some of his friends had gone to the tea stall, the accused attacked and humiliated the complainant. Since the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, the provisions of the Atrocities Act are also invoked. 14.2 The complainant has filed an affidavit on 27.09.2016 that, the incident did take place, but it is not to humiliate the complainant because of his caste. Since the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, the provisions of the Atrocities Act are also invoked. 14.2 The complainant has filed an affidavit on 27.09.2016 that, the incident did take place, but it is not to humiliate the complainant because of his caste. With a view to see that the complainant is not pressurised to say so, this Court also has inquired from him. He is represented by an advocate before this Court. He has filed further affidavit dated 10.10.2016 and he confirms that, he does not have any objection if the accused are granted anticipatory bail. The affidavit further goes to show that the complainant and the accused are residing in the same town in near vicinity and the situation is calm. It is urged even by the complainant that let the situation remain calm. 15. The narration in the above four FIRs are taken into consideration by this Court and it is found that, in none of the complaints, the provisions of the Atrocities Act would be attracted. 15.1 So far Criminal Misc. Application No.12577 & 13077 of 2016 are concerned, from the narration in the FIR being C.R.- I No. 05 of 2016 registered with the Liliya Police Station, District : Amreli, it transpires that, it is an accident and the family of the victim must get compensation in accordance with law, but it is not that the said person has died because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste. Even one of the accused in the said incident was also hospitalised along with the person who subsequently died. The caste factor has nothing to do with the accident in question. The Executive Engineer, who even did not know as to who is to come for the job is also named as an accused. The person who only gave an address as to from where such a vehicle can be managed, is also named as an accused. The co-victim is also named as an accused. In such glaring facts, if the application is rejected as not maintainable, it would in no way serve the object of the Atrocities Act. 15.2 So far Criminal Misc. Application No.20058 of 2016 is concerned, from the narration in the FIR being C.R.- I No. 88 of 2016 registered with the Una Police Station, District : Gir Somnath, it transpires that, the facts are not only glaring but alarming. 15.2 So far Criminal Misc. Application No.20058 of 2016 is concerned, from the narration in the FIR being C.R.- I No. 88 of 2016 registered with the Una Police Station, District : Gir Somnath, it transpires that, the facts are not only glaring but alarming. The complainant who is an advocate, has successfully arm-twisted all, the Revenue Authorities, the successful bidder in the auction and the terror is to the extent that the persons who were only witnesses in the auction proceedings, are also named as accused, with the mask of Atrocities Act. The abuse on the part of the complainant is so glaring that the successful bidder who belongs to Scheduled Caste, could not be made an accused in this FIR and therefore on the same date, the wife of the complainant has filed an FIR against the successful bidder of molestation. If the citizen are not protected in these glaring facts, it would prove to be counterproductive for the peace loving down trodden persons, as well. 15.3 So far Criminal Misc. Application No.18957 of 2016 is concerned, from the narration in the FIR being C.R.- I No. 56 of 2016 which is registered with the Gomtipur Police Station, Ahmedabad City on 13.06.2016, it transpires that, it is abused by none else than a police official herself, that too for her property dispute. The accused belong to Muslim community. The complaint in substance is to the effect that, the complainant – lady is working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The incident is claimed to have occurred on 12.11.2015. She had given complaint to the police at the relevant time also. The Police Inspector had examined the said complaint and found that it was a false complaint and that it was given just to arm twist the applicants in the civil dispute. The report in that regard, dated 29.03.2016 by the Police Inspector of Gomtipur Police Station, Ahmedabad City was also given. The statement of the complainant (dated 12.11.2015) before the police Authorities qua the incident in question is also on record. In substance it is to the effect that, since the police Authorities had assured that the accused would not put the door on the disputed side, she does not intend to pursue the complaint. The statement of the complainant (dated 12.11.2015) before the police Authorities qua the incident in question is also on record. In substance it is to the effect that, since the police Authorities had assured that the accused would not put the door on the disputed side, she does not intend to pursue the complaint. In substance, according to the complainant, the interim injunction was thus obtained by the police Authorities, in her favour, independent of the civil litigation, and therefore she was satisfied. It is noted that, there is civil dispute also between the parties qua the same disputed property. If for this complaint, the application of the accused (which also includes a lady accused) would be rejected as not maintainable, not only in no way it would serve any object of the Atrocities Act, it would create other social imbalances, which would be detrimental to the society on the whole. 15.4 So far Criminal Misc. Application No.26220 of 2016 is concerned, (C.R.- I No. 44 of 2016 registered with the 'B' Division Police Station, Surendranagar), now it is the say of the complainant himself that though the unpleasantness had taken place, the complainant is not attacked because he belongs to a particular community. It is his case that they (the complainant and the accused) are living in close vicinity and now they are living peacefully. He has further stated that, he does not have any objection if the application of the accused for anticipatory bail is allowed by this Court. The question of considering the concession of the complainant by the Court, would also come only if the application is accepted to be maintainable. If the application is rejected as not maintainable, it would only add to the animosity between two groups though both of them want to live together peacefully. 15.5 It is in the above factual background, this exercise is undertaken by this Court, whether the applications should be considered on merits or not. Having held that, these applications need to be considered on merits, the preliminary contention that these applications be dismissed as not maintainable, is rejected. 16. These applications are in different FIRs noted above. Appropriate orders, granting/refusing protection has to be passed separately. Since the above noted common question was involved in these matters, all these applications were heard together for this purpose. 16. These applications are in different FIRs noted above. Appropriate orders, granting/refusing protection has to be passed separately. Since the above noted common question was involved in these matters, all these applications were heard together for this purpose. Now all these applications need to be listed separately for further hearing/order. 17. Registry is directed to list these applications for further consideration on 18.10.2016.