ORDER : 1. The appellant has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 47 of 2022 before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Special Judge (Atrocity), Aknleshwar 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. 11199009220034 of 2022 with Umalla Police Station, Dist: Bharuch for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code; u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocity Act”) wherein, the learned 2nd Additional Special Judge (Atrocity), Aknleshwar has rejected the said application on 03.02.2022. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred said appeal u/s 14-A of the Atrocity Act. 3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent person and wrongly involved in the present crime in question. That, there is no direct or indirect role attributed to the present appellant. That, the appellant has nothing to do with the present crime in question, and his name has wrongly been dragged with a view to achieve the goal of the respondent No.2. That, the appellant has not uttered any offensive words against the complainant in a public and no role is attributed to the present appellant with regard to using offensive and abusive language against the complainant in public. That, no specific intention as to causing hurt to the complainant is attributed to the present appellant and merely to seek revenge on appellant, name of the appellant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. That, other co accused have filed quashing petition to quash the impugned FIR wherein they are protected. 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 No.1 -State has opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that prima facie involvement of the appellant is established by the prosecution. 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 No.1 -State has opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that prima facie involvement of the appellant is established by the prosecution. Referring the contents of the complaint, learned APP has submitted that the appellant is involved in the serious offence as mentioned in the complaint and therefore, no liberty can be granted in favour of the appellant while releasing him on bail. That, using abusive language and derogatory words against the complainant, offence was clearly made out by the appellant. It was further submitted that Section 8 restricts to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. Hence, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent No.1- State to dismiss present appeal. 6. Today, when the matter was called out, none was present for and on behalf of the respondent no.2 even if notice has been duly served to him as per report dated 24.03.2022 of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch. 7. Having considered the facts of the case, police papers and submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that the complaint is lodged against the present appellant and other accused before the Umalla Police Station, Dist; Bharuch being CR No. 11199009220034 of 2022 on 14.01.2022 for the offence alleged to have been committed and punishable under Sections u/s. 323, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code; u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act. 8. If we consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. 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. 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 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. 9. 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. 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. 10. 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. 11. It appears from the contents of the complaint that appellant has not uttered any offensive words against the complainant in public and no role is attributed to the present appellant in respect of using offensive and abusive language against the complainant in a public view. No specific allegations are made against the present appellant causing any hurt to the complainant and only allegations are made in the complainant that appellant gave kick blow to the complainant. It appears that no weapon was used by the present appellant against the complainant in the complaint. It further appears that the complaint has been filed by the appellant delay by five days. It appears that no weapon was used by the present appellant against the complainant in the complaint. It further appears that the complaint has been filed by the appellant delay by five days. As per the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, other accused have filed Special Criminal Application No. 1690 of 2022 under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the impugned complaint wherein notice was issued and other accused were protected by this court vide order dated 14.03.2022. Nothing is pointed by the prosecution that any criminal antecedents against the present appellant. Considering the role played by the present appellant as alleged in the complaint as well as record available with the court, prayer made by appellant requires consideration. 12. Therefore, considering the decision rendered in the aforesaid citations, present appeal deserves consideration. 13. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 03.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.47 of 2022 by learned 2nd Additional Special Judge (Atrocity), Aknleshwar 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. 13. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 03.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.47 of 2022 by learned 2nd Additional Special Judge (Atrocity), Aknleshwar 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 25.04.2022 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 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; 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; 14. 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. 15. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. Notice stands discharged. Direct service is permitted.