LALAN DARSHANBHAI SHIRISHKUMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

       R/CR.A/920/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 920 of 2026
==========================================================
                         LALAN DARSHANBHAI SHIRISHKUMAR
                                      Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MUNJAL V ACHARYA(10678) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MARIYA M DALAL(3957) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                 Date : 30/07/2026

                                       ORDER


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



                                       Page 1 of 7
     R/CR.A/920/2026                                ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




      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


                                 Page 2 of 7
     R/CR.A/920/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




      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



                                  Page 3 of 7
      R/CR.A/920/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




        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



                                   Page 4 of 7
        R/CR.A/920/2026                                                ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




         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


                                              Page 5 of 7
        R/CR.A/920/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




         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


                                     Page 6 of 7
      R/CR.A/920/2026                                                       ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




         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.




                                                                       (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

SUCHIT


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2026 16:11:28




                                                 Page 7 of 7