JUDGMENT V. M. Deshpande, J. - Heard Shri R. M. Daga, learned advocate for the appellant, Smt. M. a. Barabde, learned aPP for respondent/State and Shri N. M. Kolhe, learned advocate appointed to represent the respondent no. 2. 2. admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 3. The reason for filing of this appeal by the appellant under Section 14a of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 is that when the appellant filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned additional Sessions Judge-2, amravati bearing Criminal Bail application No. 498/2021 was rejected by the learned Special Judge vide order dated 28.05.2021. 4. The investigation in this prosecution case is complete. The challan is already presented by the Investigating agency. 5. In this prosecution case there are total 13 accused persons and except the appellant all other 12 accused persons are already released on bail by Trial Court or by this Court. This submission made on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellant was not countered by learned aPP for State and learned advocate for the respondent no. 2. 6. In this prosecution case, the incident occurred on 09.08.2020 in between 3.30 to 3.45 p.m. in the courtyard of the house of the deceased. The incident in question was reported by Sou. Vandana Dalal, mother of deceased- ajaj Dalal on the very same day. In view of her report, a crime was registered against the appellant and other accused persons bearing Crime No. 196/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 365, 120B, 148, 149, 504, 34, 269, 270, 271 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3, 4 read with 25 of the arms act and under Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police act. 7. Form the First Information Report (FIR), it is clear that the first informant does not disclose that her son was assaulted by the appellant or the other accused persons only because he belongs to Scheduled Caste. In that view of the matter, at least prima facie, at this stage the offence in that context will have to be evaluated only after the evidence. 8. In that view of the matter, at least prima facie, at this stage the offence in that context will have to be evaluated only after the evidence. 8. On the preceding day of the actual assault was birthday of one arif Saha, the friend of the deceased. This arif Saha is also examined by the prosecuting agency during the investigation and his statement is part and parcel of the charge-sheet. 9. In the FIR, the presence of other accused persons is also mentioned however in the FIR it is stated by the first informant that her son was assaulted on thigh by the appellant. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has also recorded further statement of the first informant, it is dated 12.08.2020. Importantly, in her statement recorded during investigation she did state very specifically that her son was assaulted on thigh not only by the present appellant but co-accused- Nitin. Similar is the statement of Puja- sister of deceased and Babarao- father of the deceased and arif Saha-independent witness, who also attribute role that the deceased was assaulted not only by the present appellant but by Nitin on his thigh. 10. The post-mortem report is available on record. It show that there are injuries and all are on thigh alone and one incised wound on ring finger and one on forearm. In this backdrop, it is the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that co-accused- Nitin is also released on bail by Trial Court. He submitted that therefore the learned Judge of the Trial Court ought to have applied yardstick of parity qua present appellant also. He submitted that another accused by name Surendra is released on bail by this Court. However, learned aPP for the State is absolutely right in her submission that the case of the said accused has no parity with the present appellant in as much as against the said accused the role attributed is that he assaulted by fist blows. 11. Learned aPP invited our attention to the statement of one anita Makeshwar, who reached to the spot immediately after the assault. Her statement would show that when she reached to the house of the deceased-ajay that time she noticed deceased-ajay was lying in pool of blood and one knife was found to be struck to the thigh of the deceased-ajay. Learned aPP invited our attention to the statement of one anita Makeshwar, who reached to the spot immediately after the assault. Her statement would show that when she reached to the house of the deceased-ajay that time she noticed deceased-ajay was lying in pool of blood and one knife was found to be struck to the thigh of the deceased-ajay. after the incident, the injured was immediately referred by the Police authority to Rural Hospital, Tiwsa. The requisition sent alongwith injured does not show that the Police found knife struck in thigh of deceased-ajay. 12. From the appellant no knife is seized. What is seized from his is a gun, which was not at all used in the assault even according to the prosecution. Two knives are recovered during the course of investigation on memorandum statement of the co-accused, one is at behest of co-accused- amar Kalmegh and another is by co-accused-Nitin, who is already released on bail by the Trial Court. Thus, at least at this stage, the weapon by which the assault was made is not found to be concealed by the present appellant. 13. The appellant is in jail from 10.08.2020. Considering the statement recorded during the investigation, immediately after the incident, of all eye-witnesses including the first informant show that the deceased was not assaulted alone by the appellant but also by Nitin, who stand released on bail by the Trial Court. 14. The reply filed on behalf of the prosecuting agency is conspicuous by its absence about the past criminal record of the appellant. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that further custodial presence of the appellant is not warranted. Resultantly, we pass the following order:- i) The order passed by learned additional Sessions Judge-2, amravati in Criminal Bail application No. 498/2021, dated 28.05.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. ii) The appellant- atul S/o. Roopraoji Shingan be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 196/2020 registered at Police Station Tiwsa, Dist. amravati for offence punishable under Sections 302, 365, 120B, 148, 149, 504, 34, 269, 270, 271 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3, 4 read with 25 of the arms act also under Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police act on he executing a P.R. bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount. iii) The appellant is directed not to enter city of Tiwsa until trial is over. iv) The appellant shall furnish his residential address where he shall be residing after release on bail to the learned Judge before whom he will be executing bail bond. v) The learned Judge before whom the bail bond is executed is directed to ensure that condition is imposed on the appellant that the appellant shall attend Police Station twice in a month i.e. on Friday and Tuesday and shall remain in Police Station from 11.00 am. to 3.00 p.m. The Police Station shall be nearest to the Police Station of the address where the appellant will be residing. vi) The appellant is also directed to attend each and every date of the Court case. any two consecutive default on his part will entail cancellation of this bail. 15. Shri N. M. Kolhe, learned advocate is entitled for his professional fees for arguing this appeal on behalf of the respondent no. 2, which is to be paid by Legal aid Committee and quantified to Rs.10,000/- (Rs.4000/- (Rs. Four Thousand). 16. With this the appeal is allowed and disposed of.