ORDER : 1. Rule. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State. 2. Mr. Abhaykumar P. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the present application qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2. Permission as prayed for is granted. The present application stands dismissed qua applicant Nos. 1 & 2. Rule discharged for applicant Nos. 1 & 2. The present application is now considered for applicant Nos. 3 and 4. 3. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants No. 3 & 4 have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in case of their arrest in connection with the FIR registered at C.R. No. I - 71 of 2015 with Shihori Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 4. Learned advocate for the applicants No. 3 & 4 submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicants No. 3 & 4 are available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicants No. 3 & 4 may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned advocate for the applicants No. 3 & 4, on instructions, states that the applicants No. 3 & 4 are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent Court for his remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of applicants No. 3 & 4 accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 7. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. 7. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigating papers as well as considering the case and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused and also considering the fact that incident has taken place between the two groups wherein the accused side has also filed complaint against the complainant. Further, the applicant No. 4 herein has also sustained injury in the scuffle. Hence, without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants No. 3 & 4. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shri. Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia, as reported at (1980) 2 SCC 665 . 8. In the result, the present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicants No. 3 & 4 herein being arrested pursuant to FIR registered at C.R. No. I - 71 of 2015 with Shihori Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha, the applicants No. 3 & 4 shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one surety of like amount on the following conditions that they:- (a) Shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required. (b) Shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 2.2.2016 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. (c) Shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (d) Shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police. (d) Shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police. (e) Shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders. (f) Shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week. (g) It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits. 9. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicants No. 3 & 4. The applicants No. 3 & 4 shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants No. 3 & 4, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order. 10. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court while enlarging the applicants No. 3 & 4 on bail. 11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Application is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.