JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. Admit. Learned Ms.Moxa Thakkar for respondent No.1- State and learned advocate Mr. S.K. Bagga for respondent No.2 waive service of notice of admission. 2. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short) at the instance of the appellant original accused for bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-215 of 2018 registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5-A) of the Atrocity Act. 3. It is the case of the appellant that on 19.10.2018, one FIR came to be lodged against 8 accused on the ground that one person, namely Merambhai @ Maheshbhai, who is running Egg's lorry outside the residence of the complainant and in the said area, relatives of one Kulmatiben and Guddu Chauhan, Rakesh Chauhan and Avadesh Chauhan are residing and they wanted to close the lorry run by the said person and in connection with the same, some dispute was going on between Merambhai and Sunny. It is alleged that the accused of the said FIR assaulted with iron pipes and other weapons have assaulted the complainant and other injured witnesses, in which Merambhai died. 4. It is contended by the appellant that pursuant to his arrest, the appellant had approached the Sessions Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Application No.364 of 2019, which came to be rejected by learned 12th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide order dated 6.2.2019. 5. According to the appellant, he is totally innocent and he is falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence as alleged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged crime. That the appellant and other injured witness, namely Anil Shivdas Chauhan, has received serious injury in his hand and face and he was admitted in L.G. Hospital, Maninagar for treatment and the appellant also sent an application to the Police Commissioner and injured Anil has also filed a petition, being Special Criminal Application No.10677 of 2018, before this Court. That the appellant and other injured witness, namely Anil Shivdas Chauhan, has received serious injury in his hand and face and he was admitted in L.G. Hospital, Maninagar for treatment and the appellant also sent an application to the Police Commissioner and injured Anil has also filed a petition, being Special Criminal Application No.10677 of 2018, before this Court. It is also alleged that the present appellant has also filed cross complaint against the present complainant, being C.R. No.I-216 of 2018 before Odhav Police Station. It is also contended that looking to the FIR and the papers of charge-sheet, there is no evidence against the appellant and keeping the appellant in jail would not serve any purpose. It is also contended that other co-accused have been enlarged on bail by learned Sessions Court, whereas the application of the appellant has been rejected. It is also contended that he is not having any antecedent, is a young aged person and has liability of family. According to him, he is not likely to abscond and the charge-sheet has also been filed and on these grounds, he has prayed to enlarge him on bail. 6. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared and filed affidavit-in-reply and has contended that the present appellant is instigator of the entire incident and the appellant along with other co-accused have beaten the deceased and other witnesses and they have acted in a very handed manner and have taken the law in their hands. It is also contended that there are specific allegations in the FIR against the present appellant and he being the member of unlawful assembly, is guilty of the offences and therefore, considering the nature of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, his application should be rejected. It is also contended that the bail applications of the other accused were considered and considering the role attributed the present appellant, it is prayed to dismiss the bail application of the appellant. 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent No.1- State and learned advocate Mr. S.K. Bagga for the respondent No.2 and perused the papers made available by the prosecution. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli for the appellant submitted that this is an application after charge-sheet and that the appellant has filed cross complaint. Ashish Dagli for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the respondent No.1- State and learned advocate Mr. S.K. Bagga for the respondent No.2 and perused the papers made available by the prosecution. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Dagli for the appellant submitted that this is an application after charge-sheet and that the appellant has filed cross complaint. While referring to the FIR, he has contended that the main role of beating the deceased is of Rakesh Chauhan and the present appellant is not involved in committing murder of the deceased. He has also stated that the present appellant has not given any injury to the deceased and the injury given to the other witnesses is not of serious nature and they all are discharged. He has also contended that other co-accused have been released on bail by the Sessions Court and therefore, on the ground of parity, the appellant may also be released on bail. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the State submitted that the entire incident has happened at the instigation of the present appellant and unlawful assembly has been formed by the appellant and other accused with iron pipes and other weapons in their hands. She has also contended that the appellant has inflicted blow to the three persons and the weapons have been discovered and the blood group of the deceased has been found on the cloth of the appellant, which is supported from the FSL report. She has also contended that the first assault was made by the present appellant on the injured witness and thereafter, the entire incident had happened. She has further contended that so far as the other co-accused are concerned, they were having only sticks in their hands and considering their role, they have been granted bail by the Trial Court, whereas the role of the present appellant is of instigator and is serious one. She has prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Learned advocate Mr. S.K. Bagga for the respondent No.2 has adopted the arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and stated that the cross complaint has been filed after a delay of two days. She has prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. Learned advocate Mr. S.K. Bagga for the respondent No.2 has adopted the arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and stated that the cross complaint has been filed after a delay of two days. He has also stated that there was unlawful assembly and the present appellant is also instigator and has taken active role and has given first blow to the injured witness and there is a different role of the other accused therefore, there is no question of application of parity in this case. He has prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. In re-submission, learned advocate Mr. Dagli has submitted that the injured has given history before the doctor to the effect that 30 to 40 persons have given blow to Jagdishbhai. 12. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 13. On perusal of the papers made available to the Court, it appears that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It also appears that the cross complaint has also been lodged. From both the complaints, it appears that there was some quarrel between two groups and at that time, the present appellant has given first flow to the injured and during that course, when the deceased came to save the witnesses, one Mr. Rakesh has given blow on the head of the deceased, which has resulted into death of the deceased. It also appears from the record that the present appellant has given blow to the injured persons and that they are discharged from the hospital. It is also found that the appellant is in jail since 21.10.2018. Considering the role of the present accused- appellant, his case deserves to be considered for grant of bail by exercising the discretionary power. 14. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.2.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.364 of 2016 by learned 12th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) is hereby quashed and set aside. Considering the role of the present accused- appellant, his case deserves to be considered for grant of bail by exercising the discretionary power. 14. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 6.2.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.364 of 2016 by learned 12th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with C.R. No.I-215 of 2018 registered with Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad on executing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; . (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; (c) surrender passport, if any, to the lower Court within a week; (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m., for a period of six months or till the conclusion of the trial, whichever is earlier; (f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; 15. The authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. 16. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 17. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the appellant on bail. 18. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Direct Service is permitted.