JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. These four criminal appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘Act of 1989’), arising out of common FIR, though impugning two different orders, are heard together and disposed of by a common order. 2. Complainant Jairam lodged FIR No. 156/17 with Police Station Suratgarh City, District Sri Ganganagar against appellants for alleged offences under Sections 458, 308, 323, 325, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act. 3. In Criminal Appeals No. 632/17, 792/17 and 1151/17, impugned order is passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) on 15th of April 2017, whereas in Criminal Appeal No. 1081/17 learned trial Court has passed impugned order on 22nd of June 2017, rejecting the bail applications of appellants under Section 439 Cr. P.C. 4. Before adverting to examine the appeals on merits, it would be appropriate to examine the prayer of appellants for condonation of delay in Criminal Appeal No. 1151/17, as the same is 10 days barred by limitation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on application for condonation of delay and perused the averments made therein. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel persuaded to condone the delay. 7. Addressing on merits, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the matter and alternatively on a bare reading of FIR no offence is made out against them. Learned counsel for the appellants has also urged that statements of alleged eye witness, Ms. Suman w/o Victim Ramjilal, are inconsistent and contradictory inasmuch as in her police statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. she has not whispered anything against her brother appellant Jeet Ram and other family members though she has concurred with the prosecution story that an incident occurred wherein her husband suffered injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that even victim Ramjilal filed a Habeas Corpus Petition bearing No. 49/17 before this Court against appellants including appellant Jeet Ram and his parents but before the Division Bench of this Court she has shown her willingness to go with her parents by castigating her husband Ramjilal of atrocious behaviour. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that even victim Ramjilal filed a Habeas Corpus Petition bearing No. 49/17 before this Court against appellants including appellant Jeet Ram and his parents but before the Division Bench of this Court she has shown her willingness to go with her parents by castigating her husband Ramjilal of atrocious behaviour. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that as per injury and x-ray reports victim Ramjilal has suffered four injuries out of which one is simple and three are grievous but not dangerous to life and therefore prima facie offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. Learned counsel has further submitted that Ms. Suman in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. has categorically stated that she alongwith her daughter was not kidnapped by her brother, therefore, it is a clear case of false implication of the appellants. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that after investigation charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed and appellants are in custody for last almost four months, therefore, impugned orders be annulled and they may be enlarged on bail. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the appeals and submits that looking to the nature of offences no interference with the discretionary orders passed by learned trial Court is warranted. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Sardul Bishnoi, has vehemently argued that family members of Ms. Suman were not happy for her inter-caste marriage with victim Ramjilal, therefore, her brother Jeet Ram with other appellants hatched the entire conspiracy and as such they are not entitled for bail. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for complainant and perused the materials available on record including the order passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 18th of May 2017 while disposing of Habeas Corpus Petition No. 49/17. That apart, I have also examined the requisite materials available on record. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account alleged criminal delinquency of the appellants in the light of injury report of victim Ramjilal, in my opinion, after submission of charge-sheet it would not be appropriate to keep them in custody. That apart, I have also examined the requisite materials available on record. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account alleged criminal delinquency of the appellants in the light of injury report of victim Ramjilal, in my opinion, after submission of charge-sheet it would not be appropriate to keep them in custody. Undeniably, the appellants are in custody for last more than 100 days and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, I feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned orders so as to set aside them. 12. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and it is ordered that accused-appellants, arrested in connection with FIR No. 156/17 registered at Police Station Suratgarh City, District Sri Ganganagar, may be released on bail; provided each one of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. Appeals allowed.