ORDER : P.K. LOHRA, J. Accused-appellants have preferred these two separate appeals under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) to assail impugned order dated 27th of September, 2017, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) rejecting their bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in connection with FIR No. 288/2017 of Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur wherein accused persons were charged for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307 & 149 IPC. Police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet in the matter against appellants and two others for offence under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 & 324 IPC. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that as per FIR and the evidence collected during investigation no specific role is assigned to the appellants for commission of offence. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of police statements of injured Kamlesh Menaria and Deep Lal would ipso facto reveal that at the time of scuffle both the appellants were not armed and the simple allegation against them is that they have beaten them by giving fist blows. Learned counsel has also contended that, undeniably, at the time of scuffle both the appellants were unarmed, is sufficient to show that there was no common intention on their part to commit the offence. With these submissions, learned counsel has urged that impugned order be set at naught and appellants be enlarged on bail. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeals of appellants. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that a bare perusal of the statements of injured Kamlesh Menaria and Deep Lal would ipso facto reveal that they were given beatings by co-accused Mahendra Prajapat and Suresh Prajapat and both the appellants were also accompanying them, and were involved in commission of the offence. It is also argued by learned Public Prosecutor that in view of rejection of bail by learned trial Court, while exercising its discretion, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 4. I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is also argued by learned Public Prosecutor that in view of rejection of bail by learned trial Court, while exercising its discretion, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 4. I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the materials available on record. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to accept both these appeals. 6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set aside and it is ordered that accused-appellants, (1) Rahul S/o Shri Prathvi Singh Rajput, and (2) Prem Regar S/o Shri Armchandra Regar, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 288/2017, Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, may be released on bail; provided each one of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each 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.