YUNUSKHAN HAYATKHAN MALEK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a matter of practice of the Registry of this Court not to show the name of the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant, more particularly, in the matters filed under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989. The Additional Registrar (Legal, Law and Inquiry) (To work as required and entrusted by the Registrar (Judicial), to look into the matter and furnish the explanation for nonmentioning/non-showing the status of respondent No.2 complainant despite various orders passed by this Court on this aspect from time to time.

(2.) Admit. The learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of admission for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr.G.D. Chavda waives service of notice of admission for respondent No.2 - complainant.

(3.) Vide order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam in Criminal Misc. Application No.25 of 2019, the learned trial Judge has rejected the application of the appellant filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest on account of offence being registered vide C.R.No.II-77 of 2018 with Viramgam-Rural Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(2)(5-a) and 3(1) (R)(S) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Atrocity Act').