ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Visavadar dated 13.05.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.72 of 2019 rejecting the application for anticipatory bail preferred by the appellant in connection with an FIR being C.R.No.II-3019 of 2019 registered at Bhesan Police Station for the offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as, ‘the IPC’) as also under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’). 2. Pursuant to filing of the appeal, it was admitted and notice came to be issued. The Respondent No.2 herein, who is original first informant, though served, is not present. 3. Heard Mr. Ankur Y. Oza, learned advocate for the appellant. He submits that since there is no offence made out under the Atrocities Act, even on bare reading of the FIR itself, the appellant is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. He has further submitted that though provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as ‘the Code’) not to apply to person committing an offence under the Atrocities Act, if on reading of the FIR itself, no offence under the Atrocities Act is made out then the Court is not debarred from entertaining an application for an order under Section 438 of the Code. 4. Taking me through the FIR, wherein it is stated that on 5.5.2019, at about 7.00 p.m., while the first informant was inside her house along with her family, the appellant, who is the Sarpanch of the Village, came near her house and started abusing her. It is further alleged that on asking him not to abuse, he got enraged and threatened to life and thereby, the first informant asserts that the offence is committed under the Atrocities Act. 5. As against that, Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned APP, submitted that not only the first informant but there is one independent witness to the incident and therefore, the offence under the Atrocities Act can be said to have been committed and therefore, an application under Section 438 of the Code should not be entertained. 5. As against that, Mr. Rashesh Rindani, learned APP, submitted that not only the first informant but there is one independent witness to the incident and therefore, the offence under the Atrocities Act can be said to have been committed and therefore, an application under Section 438 of the Code should not be entertained. He has further pointed out that the motive behind the offence is that the first informant had signed No Confidence Motion against the appellant, who is the Sarpanch of the Village, apart from the fact that the said No Confidence Motion could not get through, the appellant abused and threatened her of dire consequences. He has further submitted that not only the present first informant but other members of the Village Panchayat who had also signed No Confidence Motion against the appellant, were also threatened in the same manner, however, as they were not of the same caste as falling under the Atrocities Act, they have not filed any complaint. 6. Having considered the provisions of Section 18, as also Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act and keeping in mind the offence which is alleged against the appellant, it is clear that no offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act can be said to have been committed. Even if someone insults or intimidates any member of a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in any public place within public view, no offence under the Act can be said to be committed. It is only when insult and intimidation is with intent to humiliate a person only because of that caste, the offence can be said to have been committed and not the perception of a person that every insults or intimidation only with a view to humiliate a person may be a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and not because of that caste alone. For constituting that offence, insults and intimidation should be intentional with a view to see that such member is humiliated about the caste, that too, in any place within the public view. Considering the judgment in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. For constituting that offence, insults and intimidation should be intentional with a view to see that such member is humiliated about the caste, that too, in any place within the public view. Considering the judgment in the case of Vilas Pandurang Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2012 SC 3316 and in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 (6) SCC 450 ; though provisions of Section 18 bars remedy under Section 438, it can be invoked if no prima-facie case exists under the Atrocities Act. Though Section 18-A of the Atrocities Act prohibits applying of provisions of Section 438 of the Code notwithstanding any judgment, order or direction of Court, the constitutional validity of the said provisions is writ large, pending before the Supreme Court. It appears that though there may be a criminal intimidation as provided under the IPC, it is surely, prima-facie, no insult or intimidation with regard to the caste for the member of that caste or tribe and therefore, this Court would like to exercise the discretion in faovur of the appellant directing to release the appellant on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with present offence. 7. Hence, this appeal is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.05.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Visavadar in Criminal Misc. Application No.72 of 2019 and the Investigating Officer who is investigating into an offence registered at C.R.No.I-3019 of 2019 is directed to release the appellant on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid offence on following terms and conditions: (a) cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required; (b) remain present at the concerned Police Station on 15th July, 2019. between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.; (c) not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (d) not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police; (e) at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the Investigating Officer and the Court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders; (f) not leave India without the permission of the Court, and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the trial Court within a week; and (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it just and proper and the learned Magistrate would decide the same on merits; 8. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the rights of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand if, ultimately, granted, and the powers of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. 9. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to the other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 10. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.