1) Present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocity Act") has been filed by the appellant apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11199004260195 of 2026 registered with Ankleshwar City 'A' Division Police Station, Bharuch, for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act.

2) Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely enroped in the present offence and no offence under the provisions of the Atrocity Act is made out against the present appellant. The appellant has nothing to do with the alleged offence. There is more than 8 years delay in registration of FIR. There was love affair between the appellant and victim and relationship was consensual in nature. Hence, has requested to exercise the jurisdiction in favor of the present appellant.

3) Per contra, the learned APP has vehemently opposed the present appeal and submitted that, in view of bar contained under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, present appeal is not maintainable. It is further submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the present appellant. According to the prosecution, the appellant, under the false pretext of marriage, developed a physical relationship with the victim. Thereafter, when the victim insisted upon marriage, the appellant quarreled with her and humiliated her by making caste- related remarks, despite knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. It is, therefore, submitted that prima facie offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are made out against the appellant.

4) Learned Advocate Ms. Dalal, appearing for the original complainant, has also vehemently opposed the present appeal. By adopting the submissions advanced by the learned APP, she has further contended that the appellant, under the false pretext of marriage, developed a physical relationship with the victim. Thereafter, when the appellant refused to marry her, the complainant submitted an application before the concerned police station. Subsequently, the appellant, once again assuring the victim that he would marry her, entered into a mutual agreement with her and reiterated his promise of marriage. Relying upon such assurance, the appellant and the victim started living together as husband and wife. However, whenever the victim insisted upon marriage, the appellant quarreled with her. In addition, it is alleged that the appellant humiliated the victim by making caste- related remarks and intentionally insulted her in public, despite knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, learned Advocate Ms. Dalal has requested that the present appeal be dismissed.

5) I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by learned advocates for respective parties. I have also perused the affidavit in reply filed by the original complainant whereby the original complainant has strongly opposed the present appeal. It is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided.

6) From the record, it appears that earlier the appellant and victim were in love affair and the appellant under the false pretext of marriage developed physical relationship with the victim. When the appellant refused to marry her, the complainant submitted an application before the concerned police station. Subsequently, the appellant once again assuring the victim that he would marry her within two months, entered into agreement dated 16.02.2022 with her. Relying upon such assurance, the appellant and the victim started living together as husband and wife with a view to satisfy his lust and sexual desire only. However, whenever the victim insisted for marriage, the appellant quarreled with her and humiliated the victim by making caste-related remarks and intentionally insulted her in public, despite knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.

7) Present appellant is facing charges for the offences under Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act and there is a bar under Section 18 of the Atrocity Act to exercise discretion in favor of the present appellant. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India reported in (2020)4 SCC 727; wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C., it shall not apply to the cases under Atrocity Act of 1989, however, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply. Herein, plain reading of the complaint prima facie suggest that insult of a person belongs to Scheduled castes/tribes community has been committed by the present appellant and community of the complainant is also not in dispute. However, the learned advocate for the appellant pleads ignorance about the knowledge of caste. The said fact is also question of evidence. At this stage, this Court is not required to appreciate the evidence or evaluate the fact.

8) This Court has also kept in mind the 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. But, going through the material very carefully available against the accused it appears that herein, no complaint has been made with a view to humiliate or tarnish the image of the present appellant and frivolity is noticed as discussed in the earlier part of the order.

9) In the case of Jai Prakash Singh V/s State of Bihar and another, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 379, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :

          "Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail 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."

10) As discussed hereinabove, prima facie case is made out. The allegation made in the complaint reveals that insult of caste and derogatory words being used by the appellant and as the offence under the provisions of the Atrocity Act is made out, then question of applicability of Section 18 of the Atrocity Act and bar created by section 18 of the Atrocity Act would be attracted. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decisions in the case of Shakuntla Devi vs. Baljinder Singh reported in (2014) 15 SCC 521 and Vilas Pandurang Pawar & Anr. vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 795. In these cases, it has been held that when prima facie offence under the Atrocity Act is made out, question to grant anticipatory bail does not arise. Herein, specific averments with regard to insult, intimidation are made in the complaint with intent to humiliate the caste.

11)In the present case, it is important to note that the appellant initially induced the victim to enter into a physical relationship by falsely promising to marry her. Later on, when the victim asked him to marry her, he refused. As a result, the matter was reported to the police. At the police station, the appellant again promised to marry the victim and even executed a written agreement stating that he would marry her within two months. Thereafter, from 2022 onward, the appellant and the victim started living together as husband and wife without getting legally married. When the victim again insisted for marriage, the appellant quarreled with her and humiliated her by making caste- related remarks, despite knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe. The conduct of the appellant clearly shows that he made false promises of marriage only with a view to satisfy his lust with the victim, without any genuine intention of marrying her and exploited her.

12) The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out. It is needless to say that order under Section 438 is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a seal against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society.

13)In the case of Kiran Vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain, reported in 2025 INSC 1067, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, if the allegations prima facie show that the accused intentionally insulted or humiliated a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, the court cannot grant anticipatory bail because Section 18 of the Atrocities Act bars such relief when a prima facie offence is disclosed.

14) Insofar as authorities relied on by the learned advocate for the appellants is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with the settled principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has clearly stated that concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C., it shall not apply to the cases under the Atrocity Act however, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Atrocity Act, the bar created by section 18 and 18A(i) shall not apply.

15) In wake of above discussion, this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction considering bar under Section 18 of the Atrocity Act as prima facie involvement of the present appellant in the offence is made out. Hence, present appeal is Dismissed.