ORDER : 1. The appellant has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 11 of 2020 before the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No. II-301 of 2019 with Morbi Taluka Police Station for the offence punishable u/ss. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(2)(5)(a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocity Act”) as well as u/s. 135 of the Gujarat Police Act wherein, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi rejected the said application. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred said appeal u/s 14(1) of the Atrocity Act. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has been falsely roped into the offence by the victim. That, it is not stated anywhere in the complaint as to what were the exact words regarding caste hurdled by the appellant. That, because the appellant had been wrongly arraigned as an accused in the FIR just because he is Government servant and he is happened to the brother of the accused No. 1 whose land is adjoining to the complainant and there was some dispute with regard to the same land which is reflecting in the complaint itself. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to enlarge the present appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest. 5. From the other side, learned APP for the respondent -State and learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and argued that prosecution has clearly established its case against the present appellant. That, the sufficient material is available with the prosecution that the present appellant is involved in the alleged offence. That Section 18A clearly bars to grant of anticipatory bail as prayed by the present appellant. From the averments made in the complaint dated 8.6.2019 by the complainant, it is clearly stated by him about involvement of the present appellant in the alleged offence. That Section 18A clearly bars to grant of anticipatory bail as prayed by the present appellant. From the averments made in the complaint dated 8.6.2019 by the complainant, it is clearly stated by him about involvement of the present appellant in the alleged offence. That, other materials also confirm the involvement of the present appellant in the alleged offence. Therefore, no prayer will be granted by this Court for enlarging him on anticipatory bail. Ultimately, learned APP for the State and learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 have requested to dismiss the present appeal. 6. If we consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (6) SCC 454 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 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. View taken by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pankaj D. Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. From the averments made in the complaint, basic ingredients of the offence, as alleged are missing in the complaint. Merely any particular word alleging someone else would not involve the present appellant in the offence. There are no specific allegations made by the complainant against the present appellant of committing any offence under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocity Act. 7. In the case of Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra in Review Petition (Cri.) No. 228 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018, it was opined that direction nos. (iii) and (iv) issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court deserve to be and are hereby recalled and consequently we hold that direction no. (v), also vanishes. The other directions remained as it is as there is no bar in granting anticipatory, but this Court has made scrutiny of the complaint and prima-facie, it is found with mala-fide. 8. (iii) and (iv) issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court deserve to be and are hereby recalled and consequently we hold that direction no. (v), also vanishes. The other directions remained as it is as there is no bar in granting anticipatory, but this Court has made scrutiny of the complaint and prima-facie, it is found with mala-fide. 8. In the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 , it was held that according to Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocity Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. 9. Having considered the facts of the case, police papers and submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that the complaint was filed on 8th June, 2019 against two accused persons including present appellant. In the contents of the complaint, the alleged offence was committed on 7th June, 2019 at 6.30 p.m. where the complainant, his wife and wife of his elder brother were cultivating the land. At around 8.30 p.m. one four wheeler came to their field and two persons were come out from the vehicle having weapon of Axe and they were named as Jagdishbhai Jeshambhai Kasundra and Bhaveshbhai Jeshambhai Kasundra. Out of them, Jagdishbhai J. Kasundra entered into vadi and informed his colleague to bring weapon Axe. He tried to rush for assaulting the complainant, at that time, wife and sister of the complainant intervened the co-accused and they were also beaten by them, as complainant reached there, co-accused and the present appellant, who happens to be uncle of co-accused, used abusive language. At that time, hearing of shouting, one Dineshbhai Punabhai Boria tried to intervene and thereafter, they left the place of the offence and threat was given by accused persons to commit murder. From the entire complaint, no allegations are made by the complainant of using any derogative language by them to insult/intimidate caste of the complainant. That, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to attract the provision of Atrocities Act. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Vora, J.) passed order dated 23.1.2020 in Criminal Misc. From the entire complaint, no allegations are made by the complainant of using any derogative language by them to insult/intimidate caste of the complainant. That, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to attract the provision of Atrocities Act. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Vora, J.) passed order dated 23.1.2020 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 23908 of 2019, wherein, no coercive steps shall be taken against the present appellant and permission was granted for the Investigation which may proceed further in accordance with law. Therefore, considering the decision rendered in the aforesaid citations, present appeal deserves consideration. 10. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 9.1.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11 of 2020 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with surety of like amount on the following conditions that the appellant:- (a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required. (b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 25th February 2020 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. (c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (d) shall 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) shall 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) shall not leave India without the permission of the Trial Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week. (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 11. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the appellant. (g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 11. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the appellant. The appellant 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. 12. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the appellant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 13. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima-facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail. 14. Notice stands discharged. Direct service is permitted.