JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. Present appellants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 783 of 2021 before the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocity) & 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Ahmedabad u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No. 11204017210334 of 2021 with Chaklashi Police Station, Dist. Kheda for the offence punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocity Act") wherein, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge & Special Atrocity Judge, Nadiad rejected the said application vide order dated 29.7.2021. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred said appeal u/s. 14-A of the Atrocity Act. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent persons and are falsely implicated in the alleged offence. That, the complaint filed by the complainant with prejudicial mind and with a view to harass the appellants. That, no offence whatsoever have been established which attracts the sections of Atrocity Act. That, the incident was occurred on 18.7.2021 at about 7.15 in the evening and FIR was lodged on 19.7.2021 at about 21.15 in the night and there was no any explanation coming in FIR for late filing of the FIR which itself speaks that no incident as alleged was taken place. That, alleged incident was taken place in society whereas, learned Special Atrocity Court observed that alleged incident was taken place outside the society. That, respondent No. 2 has used his weapon of Atrocity against the present appellants. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellants to enlarge the present appellants on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest. 5. From the other side, learned APP for the respondent -State as well as learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 have opposed the prayer made by the appellants and submitted that complaint itself shows that prima facie case is made out against the present appellants by the prosecution. That, appellant No. 1 insulted with intention to the complainant many of times i.e. on 16th July, 2021 & 18th July, 2021. That, appellant No. 1 insulted with intention to the complainant many of times i.e. on 16th July, 2021 & 18th July, 2021. That, threat was given by the appellants to kill them by Dhariya. That, offence was committed by the present appellants with intend to humiliate respondent No. 2, who is member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, in any place within the public view. That, no prayer in nature of anticipatory bail can be granted to the present appellants, considering their involvement made by the prosecution. That Section 18A of the Act clearly bars to grant of anticipatory bail as prayed by the present appellants. Therefore, no prayer may be granted by this Court for enlarging them on anticipatory bail. Ultimately, learned APP for the State as well as 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 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 alleging someone caste would not involve the present appellant in the offence. There are no specific allegations made by the complainant against the present appellants in his complaint of committing any offence under the provisions of the Atrocity Act. 7. 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. (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. 8. In the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of and Andhra Pradesh and Ors., reported in (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 appearing for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that offence was registered under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocity Act"). It also appears that as per allegations made in the complaint against the present appellants, accused No. 1 informed the complainant that they were from lower caste and they cannot be permitted to be arraigned in the FIR. It also appears that complainant scolded them and therefore, keeping grievance by the accused No. 2 abusive language was used by the accused No. 2 to the mother of the complainant saying that appellants would face consequences in staying the society. There was scuffle with the accused No. 2. It also appears that slap was given to witness namely Hiteshbhai. It appears from the complaint that there were three incident taken place alleging humiliate the complainant or intimidate in the first part of the complaint and there was no date. Second incident was taken place on 16th July, 2021 but, dispute was settled between the parties. It also appears that slap was given to witness namely Hiteshbhai. It appears from the complaint that there were three incident taken place alleging humiliate the complainant or intimidate in the first part of the complaint and there was no date. Second incident was taken place on 16th July, 2021 but, dispute was settled between the parties. Third incident was allegedly to have been taken place on 18th July, 2021 when the appellant No. 2, who is father of the appellant No. 1, came to the house of his daughter, at that time, mother of the complainant was sitting outside the house, and appellant No. 2 used abusive language and issued threat to kill mother of the complainant and dare consequences in staying the society. From the entire complaint, it is nowhere stated by respondent No. 2 that intentionally complainant or mother was insulted or intimidated with an intention to insult or to humiliate the respondent No. 2 being member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes in any place within a public view. 10. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1311 of 2008 has referred Section 3(1)(x) of the Act which reads as under:- 3(1) Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes:- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. 11. In absence of any basic ingredients of the Act, no case is made out as alleged against the present appellants. Therefore, considering the decision rendered in the aforesaid citations, present appeal deserves consideration. 12. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 29.7.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 783 of 2021 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Atrocity Judge, Nadiad is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest on furnishing a bond of Rs. Application No. 783 of 2021 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Atrocity Judge, Nadiad is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (each) 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 24.1.2022 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; 13. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the appellants. The appellants 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. 14. 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 appellants, 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. It is clarified that the appellants, 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. 15. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the appellants on bail. Notice stands discharged. 16. Registry shall communicate this order to the concerned Sessions Court as well as jail authorities.