DARBAR SHAKTISINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenging the order passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana dated 27.6.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No.931 of 2019 refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant in connection with offence registered at C.R.No.I-85 of 2019 registered with Kadi Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, as also under Section 3(1) (r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as 'the Atrocities Act').

(2.) Heard Mr.Kanade, learned advocate for the appellant. He submits that petitioner is Security Supervisor at Kadi Bhagyodaya Hospital, looking after the security of the person coming to pay visit to the hospital and even the patients. His duty is to regulate ingress and egress in the Hospital. He has submitted that the first informant is not known to him. At the same time, he is not staying in the vicinity of the Hospital where appellant works. Therefore, there is no opportunity for him to know the caste of the first informant. However, according to him, the first informant himself put his caste in the mouth of the appellant and others with a view to invoke provisions of the Act in the FIR so as to deprive accused to apply for an order of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'). He has further submitted that on the contrary, first informant himself had come to the spot where appellant was managing the entry at the gate of the hospital where one of the witness had parked his bike obstructing the ingress into it, with stick over his bike and started attacking the persons gathered. According to him, there is no role assigned to him so far as assault is concerned individually. Therefore, he requests for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.

(3.) As against that, Ms.Mayuri Chahuan, learned advocate for respondent No.2 herein submitted that since the offence under the Act is alleged against the appellant in view of Section 18 and Section 18A of the Atrocities Act, no appeal be entertained praying for relief under Section 438 of the Code. At the same time, she submitted that looking to the injuries and the averments made in the FIR about manner in which the offence took place, the appellant be refused an order of anticipatory bail.