ORDER : 1. The appellant preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No. 265 of 2020 before the Court of learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge him on regular bail in connection with offence being registered vide C.R. No.11823014200223 of 2020 with Kevadia Police Station, Narmada for the offence punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, 419 of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of Information and Technology Act and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) (ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") wherein, the learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla rejected the said application on 17.10.2020. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred present appeal u/s 14A of the Atrocities Act. 3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has not committed alleged offence. That the appellant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence only on the basis of suspicion without there being any incriminating material or evidence against the present appellant. He further submits that appellant was already granted bail so far as offence punishable under Sections 354A, 354D, 419 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of Information and Technology Act are concerned. Merely upon the addition of offence punishable under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, the appellant has been again arrested. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla and release the appellant on bail. 5. Today, learned APP for the respondent-State has produced a report dated 01.12.2020 under the Signature of Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.C/S.T. Cell, Narmada addressing to the Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court as well as xerox copy of statement of first informant-respondent No.2 namely Divyaben Natvarbhai Tadvi and statement of Ranjitbhai Jethabhai Tadvi recorded on 30.11.2020, which are taken on record. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that serious offence was committed by the present appellant and prosecution has established prima facie case against the present appellant. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that serious offence was committed by the present appellant and prosecution has established prima facie case against the present appellant. That, no lenient view shall be taken by this Court by enlarging the present appellant on bail. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent-State to dismiss present appeal. 6. As per the statement of first informant-respondent No.2 namely Divyaben Natvarbhai Tadvi recorded by the i/c Police Inspector, Kevadiya Police Station, Dist-Narmada on 30.11.2020, notice was duly served to her but she did not want to remain present before this Court and she did not want to contest this criminal appeal. 7. Having considered the facts of the case and having heard arguments advanced by learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that in connection with FIR, appellant was arrested on 14.09.2020 and he was produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurudeshwar, and thereafter, he was released on regular bail vide order dated 15.09.2020. It also appears that thereafter investigating agency filed an application for adding sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, which was allowed by the concerned court. Subsequently, the investigating agency also requested the Court to issue arrest warrant due to addition of the charges, which was also allowed and appellant was again arrested on 09.10.2020, thereafter, appellant approached the learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla with a request to release him on bail by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.265 of 2020, which was rejected on 17.10.2020. It also appears that to attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act as applied by the prosecution, it is mandatory that accused persons must have spoken derogatory words "within a public view". In the present complaint, ingredients for invoking the aforesaid provisions are missing. 8. Application No.265 of 2020, which was rejected on 17.10.2020. It also appears that to attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act as applied by the prosecution, it is mandatory that accused persons must have spoken derogatory words "within a public view". In the present complaint, ingredients for invoking the aforesaid provisions are missing. 8. In the case of Gorige Pentiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. 9. In the case of Asmathunnisa v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 259 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 12. A reading of Section 3 shows that two kinds of insults against the member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are made punishable one as defined under subsection (ii) and the other as defined under subsection (x) of the said section. A combined reading of the two subsections shows that under section (ii) insult can be caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes by dumping excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood, and to cause such insult, the dumping of excreta etc. need not necessarily be done in the presence of the person insulted and whereas under subsection (x) insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view of the expression "in any place within public view". need not necessarily be done in the presence of the person insulted and whereas under subsection (x) insult can be caused to the person insulted only if he is present in view of the expression "in any place within public view". The words "within public view", in my opinion, are referable only to the person insulted and not to the person who insulted him as the said expression is conspicuously absent in subsection (ii) of Section 3 of Act 3/1989. By avoiding to use the expression "within public view" in subsection (ii), the Legislature, I feel, has created two different kinds of offences an insult caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, even in his absence, by dumping excreta etc. in his premises or neighbourhood and an insult by words caused to a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes "within public view" which means at the time of the alleged insult the person insulted must be present as the expression "within public view" indicates or otherwise the Legislature would have avoided the use of the said expression which it avoided in sub-section (ii) or would have used the expression "in any public place". 13. Insult contemplated under sub-section (ii) is different from the insult contemplated under sub- section (x) as in the former a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes gets insulted by the physical act and whereas is the latter he gets insulted in public view by the words uttered by the wrongdoer for which he must be present at the place. 18. As stated by me earlier the words used in sub- section (x) are not "in public place", but "within public view" which means the public must view the person being insulted for which he must be present and no offence on the allegations under the said section gets attracted. In my view, the entire allegations contained in the complaint even if taken to be true do not make out any offence against the petitioner". 10. It also appears that in the FIR it is nowhere mentioned by first informant for applicability of the provisions of Atrocities Act. The appellant appears to be aged about 19 years and he is a student. The appellant was earlier released on bail after his arrest and on adding Sections under the provisions of Atrocities Act, he was rearrested. 10. It also appears that in the FIR it is nowhere mentioned by first informant for applicability of the provisions of Atrocities Act. The appellant appears to be aged about 19 years and he is a student. The appellant was earlier released on bail after his arrest and on adding Sections under the provisions of Atrocities Act, he was rearrested. Considering the peculiar facts of the case as well as considering the role of present appellant in the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of present appellant by enlarging him on regular bail and hence, the prayer sought for by the present appellant requires consideration. Hence, this Court is of the view that present appeal deserves consideration In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Criminal Misc. Application No. 265 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that appellant shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station fortnightly between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet; [f] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; 11. The authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 12. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 12. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Notice is discharged.