DIVYESHKUMAR BHARATBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals are preferred by the respective appellants praying for an order in the nature of anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11210066230025 of 2023 registered with Pal Police Station, Surat, where offence alleged against them under Ss. 354(D)(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Ss. 3(2)(v)a, (w)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocities Act").

(2.) Though endorsement on the cause-list shows that respondent No.2 is served, but she is neither present in person or through an advocate.

(3.) Mr. Solanki, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that not only the husband of the first informant, even the appellants are also serving in the Surat Municipal Corporation. Over and above that, the first informant is also serving as temporary labour in the Rander Zone of Surat Municipal Corporation. Since the appellants were communicating about the visitors to the first informant, she was keeping grudge against the appellants and therefore, while first informant was working with the appellants on a truck for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the public road, she has alleged that intentionally the appellants were touching her, which is of a sexual nature and is without her consent. He has further submitted that even accepting the allegation levelled in the First Information Report, it doesn"t constitute any offence under "the Atrocities Act". He has further submitted that since no offence under "the Atrocities Act" is said to have been committed, for an offence under Sec. 354(D) of IPC, which is bailable one, merely because of an offence under "the Atrocities Act" is involved, they may not be refused an order of anticipatory bail.