JUDGMENT : 1. Present appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.881 of 2021 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal 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.11207076210620 of 2021 with Vejalpur Police Station, Panchmahal for the offence punishable u/s. 279, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s), 3(2) and 3(2)(5a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal rejected the said application on 01.11.2021. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appellant has preferred present criminal appeal under Section 14 of the Atrocities Act. 3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. However notice was duly served to the respondent No.2, he was not remained present either in person or through an advocate to contest this criminal appeal. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that the allegations in the FIR are general and vague in nature and do not prima facie construe any offence under the Atrocities Act. It is further submitted that the appellant and his son are in the business of construction sand and having sand plant at Ghusar Village and the complainant along with some other persons who are named as witness in the FIR extort money from the sand traders fro the sand plant situated at Ghusar Village. It is further submitted that if the sand traders refused to fulfill their demands, these persons have filed FIR. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the appellant to allow this appeal. 6. From the other side, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that prima facie involvement of the present appellant is clearly made out by the prosecution and he is directly involved in the offence. It is further submitted that the present appellant along with the other co-accused made a conspiracy and two to three slaps were given by using abusive words insulting the complainant in a public view. It is further submitted that ingredients as alleged by the prosecution are clearly established at this juncture, and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the order passed by the Sessions Court. It is further submitted that ingredients as alleged by the prosecution are clearly established at this juncture, and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the order passed by the Sessions Court. Hence, it was requested by learned APP appearing for the respondent- State to dismiss the criminal appeal. 7. If we consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 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 spoken alleging someone caste would not involve the present appellant in the offence. There are no specific allegations made by the complainant against the present appellant in his complaint of committing any offence under the provisions of Sections 3(2)(5)(a), 3(g),3(p),3(r),3(s)(z)(c)& u/s. 8 of the Atrocity Act. 8. In the case of Union of India v. 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 bail. This Court has made scrutiny of the complaint and prima facie, it is found that there are no specific averments, attracting the provisions of the Act as mentioned in the complaint. 9. In the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, reported in (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases 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. 10. 10. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that it is the case of the complainant that on 14.10.2021 at around 08:00 p.m., in the evening when he was standing on the side of the road near his house and Dilipbhai Vadiyabhai Rathva was also standing at that point of time, one dumber passed with full speed from there, which was followed by one loader. The loader was stopped by the complainant and on inquiry about the dumper the driver of the loader stated that the dumper belong to his employer i.e. present appellant. The complainant asked the driver to call the appellant and in some time, the appellant arrived there and grabbed his collar and also gave him some two to three slaps. Accused no.2 who also came with the appellant and made some caste is remarks upon him and insulted his caste and also threatened him that if he will stop their vehicle then he will be killed. It is stated that the accused thereafter went away after giving some abuses and accordingly, it is alleged that all accused have committed the offence and FIR came to be filed. It appears from the record that there was a some altercation which took place on 14.10.2021 between the accused no.2 and the complainant including some other persons viz. Karshanbhai Rathva, Nanabhai Rathva and Dilipbhai Rathva among from whom, Dilipbhai Fatehsinh Rathva is shown as witness in the present complaint and Karshanbhai accompanied the complainant to file the FIR. The complaint regarding the said incident is given by the wife of the accused no.2 of the present FIR and said FIR is also produced at Annexure-D. Further, it appears that allegations made in the FIR are general in nature and do not constitute any offence under the Atrocities Act. 11. If we go through the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act, it must be averred by the complainant that accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. If we peruse the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2, there is no averment or whisper made in the complaint that the present appellant intentionally insulted or intimidated him with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a place within public view. If we peruse the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2, there is no averment or whisper made in the complaint that the present appellant intentionally insulted or intimidated him with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a place within public view. If we peruse Section 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view is the material ingredient to attract this provision. From the averments made in the complaint, the alleged place cannot be treated within a public view. If we peruse Section 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act, if any person commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine. There is no averment made by the complainant in his complaint that however, present appellant was knowing that complainant was a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 12. It appears that the complainant is a habitual of lodging such kind of complaint from documents at Annexure-C on 18.01.2021 also, another complaint was filed against another person viz. Prabhatbhai Chauhan under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3 (2)(ii) and (iv) of the Atrocities Act as well as Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 13. If we refer Section 3(5) (A) of the Act, it must be within knowledge of the accused person that such person is a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member. It is nowhere alleged by the complainant that the accused persons were having knowledge that the complainant was the member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member. In absence of any specific allegations to attract Section 3(5) (A) of the Act, case of the prosecution cannot be believed at this juncture. Considering the schedule prescribed under the Act and the facts of the case, the prayer made by the present appellant requires consideration. 14. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Considering the schedule prescribed under the Act and the facts of the case, the prayer made by the present appellant requires consideration. 14. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.881 of 2021 by learned Sessions Judge, Panchmahal 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 themselves available for interrogation whenever required; (b) shall remain present at the concerned Police Station on 28.03.2022 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 her 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; and (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; 15. 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. 16. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Notice stands discharged. 19. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Police Station as well as learned Sessions Court concerned through fax or email forthwith.