ORDER : (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) 1. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice for the respective respondents. 2. By way of the present application under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocity Act”), the applicant accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR being I- C.R.No.11822022240704 of 2024 registered with Vijalpor Police Station, Navsari for the punishable under Sections 115 (2), 352 , 351 (3) , 109 (1) , 189 (2) , 190 and 191 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNS ”) and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(a), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vii), 3(2)(va) of the Atrocity Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a dispute has been ongoing for the past two years concerning open land located near the Dholikui Temple. On October 23, 2024, at 8:15 AM, the accused, in collaboration with co-accused individuals, made caste-based remarks and hurled filthy abuses at the complainant and his wife. They also assaulted the complainant with weapons, causing injuries to his head and hand. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the accused persons. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant appeared and argued that the applicant has been falsely and illegally implicated in the present offense and has not committed the alleged crime. He submitted that the applicantaccused has been faithfully serving as a police employee in Navsari district for many years and enjoys a good reputation in society. He further stated that the main accused in this case, namely (1) Satshankar alias Munna Ramcharitra Parasnath Mishra, (2) Chhotiben, widow of Ramcharitra Parasnath Mishra, (3) Vidyavati Ramcharitra Mishra, and (4) Dhruv Satshankar Mishra, have been released on regular bail and thus, the applicant may also be granted bail on the ground of parity. He further argued that there is no prima facie case against the applicant is that there has been a land dispute between the original complainant and his family members, and that the applicant being a police employee, has been falsely implicated in this offense to exert undue pressure. He submitted that if the applicant is arrested, it would cause harm to his dignity, honor, and reputation. The applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation. He submitted that if the applicant is arrested, it would cause harm to his dignity, honor, and reputation. The applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation. He has no criminal history and is a permanent resident of Navsari district, with no likelihood of absconding or fleeing. He has, therefore, requested that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the Hon’ble Court. 5. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-State and learned advocate appearing for the complainant have submitted that there has been a dispute over open land near Dholikui between the complainant, his wife, and the applicant along with other accused for the past two years. Out of this enmity, the applicant and other accused hurled abusive and caste-based remarks at the complainant and his wife, assaulted the complainant, his wife, and other people in the locality, and attacked them with a bat, iron pipe, and wooden sticks, causing serious injuries to the complainant’s head and hand and to the complainant’s wife’s head, thereby committing the offense. The applicant remained absconding after committing the crime and did not cooperate with the investigation, which is still ongoing. Based on the documents submitted, it appears that the applicant has a prima facie involvement in the offense. If granted anticipatory bail, there is a strong likelihood that he may attempt to influence or intimidate the complainant and witnesses through inducements or threats. Therefore, it has been requested that the present anticipatory bail application be rejected. 6. The Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence and as to whether prima facie it appears that accused has committed an offence, is required to be considered. Therefore, it has been requested that the present anticipatory bail application be rejected. 6. The Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence and as to whether prima facie it appears that accused has committed an offence, is required to be considered. So far as the anticipatory bail is concerned, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:- (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant of the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the evidence on record, it appears that a dispute has been ongoing for the past two years concerning open land located near the Dholikui Temple. On October 23, 2024, at 8:15 AM, the accused, in collaboration with co-accused individuals, made caste-based remarks and hurled filthy abuses at the complainant and his wife. They also assaulted the complainant with weapons, causing injuries to his head and hand. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the accused persons. 8. In view of the above, it appears that the present application has been filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as the applicant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated November 26, 2024, passed by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1008 of 2024. It seems that a dispute has been ongoing between the applicant and the complainant for the past two years regarding a temple. It seems that a dispute has been ongoing between the applicant and the complainant for the past two years regarding a temple. On October 23, 2024, the accused, in connivance with co-accused, hurled caste-based remarks and filthy abuses at the complainant and his wife, and the accused persons assaulted the complainant, resulting in grievous injuries to the head and hand of both the complainant and his wife. As the applicant and the victim are neighbors, the applicant was aware of the complainant’s caste and, with the intent to humiliate him, used caste-based remarks. Despite being a police personnel and fully aware of legal provisions, the applicant took the law into his own hands, used filthy language related to the complainant’s caste, and assaulted the complainant and his wife. As a result of the assault, the complainant and his wife were admitted to Civil Hospital, Navsari. The investigating agency has collected evidence that prima facie indicates the applicant played an active role in the assault using an iron pipe and making caste-based remarks about the complainant. The weapon has yet to be recovered, necessitating custodial interrogation. This is not a case where the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offense. Considering the restrictions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the applicant’s application. 9. One additional aspect that requires consideration here is that the present applicant is a police personnel, fully aware of legal proceedings, yet he remained an absconder. However, once a warrant under Section 72 or 82 was issued and the prosecution successfully established a case, custodial interrogation became necessary. 10. Regarding the submission made by the learned advocate for the applicant, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Asha Dube v. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in 2014 (2) SCC 171 . In that case, the investigating officer explicitly stated that the applicant had participated in the investigation and affirmed that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, based on which the Court concluded that no custodial interrogation was required. However, the facts of the present case are significantly different from the aforementioned case. Here, the applicant remained an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, despite being a police personnel. However, the facts of the present case are significantly different from the aforementioned case. Here, the applicant remained an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, despite being a police personnel. There is no fixed rule that custodial interrogation is unnecessary in every case, and once proceedings under Section 82 of the BNSS are initiated, it creates a complete embargo. 11. Further, the investigation papers clearly reveal that the present applicant has remained absconding despite issuance of warrant and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj reported in 2023 INSC 784 ; Lavesh vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730 ; Abhishek vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2022 (8) SCC 282 and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955 , in the case of Srikant Upadhyay vs The State Of Bihar, reporrted in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 no case is made out to grant the anticipatory bail. 12. Considering the applicant’s involvement, this is not a case where discretion should be exercised in his favor. If released on bail, there is a strong possibility that he may tamper with evidence and re-engage in similar illegal activities. 13. The accused is suspected of aiding in the crime, necessitating a thorough examination. The applicant, despite being a police personnel fully aware of the law and legal proceedings, is accused of assaulting the complainant and using filthy, caste-based language with the intent to humiliate him, thereby taking the law into his own hands. Consequently, custodial interrogation is deemed necessary. The government opposes granting anticipatory bail, contending that it could delay the investigation, result in evidence tampering, or allow influence over witnesses. Releasing the applicant at this stage would impede the investigating agency from conducting an effective custodial interrogation. 14. In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation is necessary. When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. The alleged offense involves humiliating the complainant with caste-based remarks, and the applicant, being a police personnel, attempted to intimidate and assault the complainant. This Court is mindful of the safeguards provided under Section 438 of the CrPC and the concept of personal liberty. The alleged offense involves humiliating the complainant with caste-based remarks, and the applicant, being a police personnel, attempted to intimidate and assault the complainant. This Court is mindful of the safeguards provided under Section 438 of the CrPC and the concept of personal liberty. Arrest is part of the process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes. In which the accused may provide information, during the the discovery of material facts and to relevant information. 15. In such circumstances, when investigation is in preliminary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted may hamper the investigation and to collect the material in the more information, and find out the involvements of another person custodial interrogation is also necessary, therefore, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187 , (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 and (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held held as follows: "The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights – safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The privilege of the prearrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy". Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investigations, held investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation" 16. Further, in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 as under: 19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation" 16. Further, in the case of Pratibha Manchanda vs The State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2023 SC 3307 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Para 19 as under: 19. The relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, italso presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.” 17. Further, keeping in mind Law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/ s State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 . Herein, I have gone through the material available against the accused very carefully and it appears that herein, no complaint has been made with view to humiliating or tarnish the image of the present applicant. Even in Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379 , Honourable Supreme Court pleased to hold: "Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offenceare required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatorybail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty." 18 This Court is of the considered view that if the present accused is equipped with protective order, it would obviously adversely affect the case of the prosecution and the qualitative investigation as applicant is having trained legal mind and he will tamper with evidence and witnesses of prosecution and here two accused are still out of reach, who are directly connected with the present accused and other co-accused. 19. 19. In the above facts and circumstances and considering the observations on the legal aspect of the matter, this Court has absolutely no doubt that if applicant is equipped with such an order before he is interrogated by the Police, it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. 20. Having considered nature and seriousness of the charge, prima facie involvement of accused and possibility of tempering with evidences, it does not appear to be just and proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed. Rule discharged.