ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. Mr. Hriday Buch learned advocate with Mr. Param Buch, learned for the applicants does not press the application qua applicant no. 2. 2. This application for bail is filed by the applicants under Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, undergoing imprisonment pursuant to conviction and sentence for 5 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 307 pursuant to judgment and order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Dahod in Sessions Case Nos. 195 of 2011 and 80 of 2012. 3. On perusal of the application, it transpires that Criminal Appeal is admitted and is pending for final hearing. 4. The case of the applicants is that in a scuffle even the appellants also received injuries and other side accused were also convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the appeals are likely to take some time for hearing for which the applicants may not be incarcerated and by imposing suitable conditions they can be enlarged on bail. 6. As against Mr. Rutvji Oza, learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr. Darshan Dave, learned advocate for the Complainant opposed the grant of bail on the ground that once conviction is imposed parameters to grant bail would be different and in the facts of this case and nature of injuries inflicted by the applicants on vital parts of body of injured so deposed by the concerned officer would reveal that they are not entitled for bail for the offences for which they are convicted and application be rejected accordingly. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record of the case vis-a-vis. judgment and order under challenge, prima-facie, we are of the opinion that even some of the applicants also received injuries and in a cross-case other side accused also came to be convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and also the fact that the appeal which is admitted in the Year 2017 is likely to take some time, we are inclined to enlarge applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4 on bail pending final hearing of the appeals. 8. Considering the above facts, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4. 1, 3 and 4 on bail pending final hearing of the appeals. 8. Considering the above facts, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4. The present application is allowed qua applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4. The applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4 are enlarged on bail on their furnishing a solvent surety of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each and personal bond of the like amount on usual terms and on the following further conditions:— 1. The applicants shall not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty. 2. The applicants shall not to try to tamper with the evidence or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner. 3. maintain law and order. 4. surrender their passport, if any, to the lower Court, within a week. 9. In the meanwhile, the substantive sentence shall remain under suspension. Bail bond before the Trial Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Rule is discharged qua Applicant No. 2. Direct service is permitted.