JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. These two appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act of 1989'), are preferred by accused-appellants to question orders dated 16th of February 2018, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Balotra (for short, 'learned trial Court'), rejecting their bail applications. As both these appeals are arising out of common FIR bearing No.436/16, registered at Police Station, Balotra, attributing offences against the appellants punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 354A IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Act of 1989 with addition of offence under Section 308 IPC in the charge-sheet, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The fact, in brief, are that complainant lodged FIR against appellants and two others for offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 354A IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Investigation commenced in the matter and finally police submitted charge-sheet against appellants and other accused persons for the charged offences besides offence under Section 308 IPC. 3. At the behest of appellants, an application is submitted before the learned trial Court for grant of bail but the same was declined. Thereupon, both of them preferred a joint appeal bearing No.1533/17 before this Court and the same was rejected on 9th of November, 2017. After rejection of first bail application and the appeal by this Court, trial commenced, and therefore, both the appellants yet again moved before the learned trial Court for grant of bail but their bail plea was declined by the impugned orders of even date. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that co-accused Durga Singh has been enlarged on bail while accepting his criminal appeal No.1534/17. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that during trial so far only three witnesses PW1 Arjun Singh, PW2 Lakh Singh and PW3 Hanif Khan have been examined and all of them have not supported the prosecution case by turning hostile. While referring to injury report of complainant Joga Ram, learned counsel contends that only one injury is shown to be grievous in nature, therefore, prima facie offence cannot travel beyond Section 325 IPC. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the injuries suffered by Sawai Ram are simple in nature. While referring to injury report of complainant Joga Ram, learned counsel contends that only one injury is shown to be grievous in nature, therefore, prima facie offence cannot travel beyond Section 325 IPC. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the injuries suffered by Sawai Ram are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that the learned trial Court has not at all taken care to examine the medical reports while considering bail plea of the appellants and simply swayed by the nature of delinquency, i.e. offence under Section 308 IPC. Learned counsel would contend that as per x-ray report of Joga Ram, there was fracture of only one rib and no other bony injury. Learned counsel has further argued that no other person has suffered any injury dangerous to life. Lastly, learned counsel contends that appellants are in custody since July 2017 and conclusion of trial in near future is not in offing, therefore, impugned order be annulled and both of them be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the appeals. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court in its discretion has rejected bail application of the appellants and said order is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor, contends that in the backdrop of criminal delinquencies of the appellants no interference with the impugned orders is warranted. 6. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record. Upon perusal of the materials available on record, more particularly, the injury reports and the x-ray reports of Joga Ram and other injured persons, in my view, serious delinquencies attributed to the appellants are prima facie questionable. Be that as it may, it would not be appropriate to make any comment about the nature of offence at this stage but then on overall analysis of the materials available on record, I feel inclined to exercise discretion in favour of appellants for favourable disposition of these appeals. Consequently, both the impugned orders are upset and the instant appeals are allowed. 7. Consequently, both the impugned orders are upset and the instant appeals are allowed. 7. As a consequence of acceptance of both these appeals, accused-appellants; (1) Bhattaram S/o Savaram, and (2) Khetaram S/o Shri Bhikaram, are ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR No.436/16, registered at Police Station, Balotra, 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.