JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. This is an appeal filed 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 appellants original accused for bail in connection with the FIR being I - C.R.No.13/2019 registered with Sayla Police Station, District: Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Atrocity Act. 2. It is submitted by the appellants that they were arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence on 26.02.2019 and they are in custody since then. It is submitted that the appellants have preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.63 of 2019 before the District and Sessions Court at Limbdi which came to be rejected by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi vide order dated 02.03.2019. According to them, they are innocent and falsely implicated in the alleged offence and the co-accused, who had preferred the bail application, has been enlarged on bail and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the appellants may be enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the appellants are aged around 25 and 22 years and except the offence punishable under Section 506(2), all the offences are bailable and, therefore also, they may be enlarged on bail on suitable conditions. On this ground, it is prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and to enlarge them on bail. 3. Heard Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Ms.Taruna Makwana, learned advocate for respondent No.2. 4. Mr.Apurva Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that except the offence punishable under Section 506(2), all the offences are bailable offence and three accused have been enlarged on bail and on the ground of parity, the present appellants may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State has submitted that the present accused along with other have assaulted the complainant with iron pipe and spoken words against the caste of the complainant and there were serious injury caused to the complainant which is proved by the injury certificate. 5. Per contra, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State has submitted that the present accused along with other have assaulted the complainant with iron pipe and spoken words against the caste of the complainant and there were serious injury caused to the complainant which is proved by the injury certificate. She has also submitted that there is panchnama of arrest wherein the accused have produced iron pipe used in the commission of the offence. She has further submitted that there is fracture injury to the complainant and he has undergone three surgery. She has submitted that no injury was caused by the third accused, who was enlarged on bail. She has submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed on 27.03.2019 and, therefore, the present appellants may prefer fresh application for bail before the concerned trial Court. She has, therefore, urged to dismiss the appeal. 6. Ms.Taruna Makwana, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has submitted that the present accused have used abusive language against the caste of the complainant and the complainant is still taking the treatment for the serious injury caused by the present appellants. She has referred to the reasons given by the trial Court in para-6(3) and 6(4) of the impugned order and has submitted that considering the seriousness of the offence and serious injury caused to the complainant, the present appeal may be dismissed and the appellants may not be enlarged on bail. 7. In the response, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that when the present appeal was filed, no charge-sheet has been filed and the present appellants have challenged the order of the trial Court. He has submitted that even if the charge-sheet is filed then there is no question of interference with the investigation by the appellants and this fact will also go infavour of the appellants for enlarging on bail. He has prayed to allow the present appeal and to enlarge the appellants on bail. 8. 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 . 9. It is an admitted fact that the appellants are in custody and they have preferred this appeal for regular bail. 8. 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 . 9. It is an admitted fact that the appellants are in custody and they have preferred this appeal for regular bail. It also appears from the papers that the accused have assaulted the complainant for which he is taking treatment till today and there is fracture caused to the complainant. It also reveals that the accused are in custody since 26.02.2019 and they are aged around 25 and 22 years respectively. Considering the role of the appellants in the alleged offence and the allegation made against them in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and enlarge the appellants on regular bail. 10. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.03.2019 passed by he learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi in Criminal Misc. Application No.63 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Hence, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.03.2019 passed by he learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi in Criminal Misc. Application No.63 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellants are ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with I - C.R.No.13/2019 registered with Sayla Police Station, District: Surendranagar on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that they 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 passports, 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) not to enter the village where the complainant is residing for the period of six months or till the case is decided by the trial Court, whichever is earlier; (f) 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; (g) furnish the present address of their 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; 11. The authorities will release the appellants only if they are 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 appellants on bail. 14. The appeal is disposed in the aforesaid terms. Direct Service is permitted.