ORDER : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2022, learned Advocate Ms. Mita Panchal for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2022, learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi on behalf of the respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr. Anirudh N. Suchak on behalf of the respondent No.2-first informant in both the appeals. 2. By way of these appeals filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants pray for being released on regular bail in connection with F.I.R. bearing C. R. No. 11210005201230 of 2020 registered with Athvalines Police Station, Dist. Surat, on 20.07.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(2)(v) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Qureshi and learned Advocate Ms. Panchal on behalf of the appellants would submit that the incident in question had occurred when the deceased along with his accomplices, at least seven accomplices to be precise, with an intention of assaulting the appellants and others had come to the place of residence of the appellants. Learned Advocates Mr. Qureshi and Ms. Panchal would submit that during the fight which ensued, the deceased had inflicted a stab wound on one of the accused one Niranjan Bhimporiya and whereas it is submitted that after the said occurrence, the present appellants and others who were present at the spot, more particularly since they were residing in the same area, had counter assaulted the deceased and others. Learned Advocates would submit that the role attributed to the present appellants is of having assaulted the deceased and whereas it is submitted that the appellants had assaulted the deceased in retaliation, more particularly the deceased and his party having come to the residential area of the appellants with a clear intention of assaulting the appellants. Learned Advocates would submit that the role attributed to the present appellants is of having assaulted the deceased and whereas it is submitted that the appellants had assaulted the deceased in retaliation, more particularly the deceased and his party having come to the residential area of the appellants with a clear intention of assaulting the appellants. Learned Advocates would further submit that while it is alleged that the appellants have used dangerous weapons and whereas it is submitted that appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2022 is stated to have a broken tile as well as an iron utensil and whereas appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2022 had initially assaulted the deceased with a stick and whereas as the incident progressed he had later on assaulted the deceased with an axe. Learned Advocates would submit that while appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2022 has an antecedent of being involved in an offence under the Prohibition Act, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2022 does not have any antecedents. It is submitted that both the appellants are in prison for more than two years and whereas it is submitted that subject imposing stringent conditions, this Court may release the appellants on regular bail. 4. These appeals are vehemently objected to by learned APP Mr. Dabhi who would rely upon the statement of witnesses as well as CCTV footage of the incident and also the statement of the first informant based upon the CCTV footage and would submit that while the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2022 is seen having used a broken tile and an iron utensil (Tagara) and whereas the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2022 has used an axe and whereas the injuries upon the deceased, correspond to the injuries which could have been inflicted with the said weapons. Thus submitting learned APP Mr. Dabhi would request that this Court may not release the present appellants on regular bail. 5. These appeals are also vehemently objected to by learned Advocate Mr. Suchak, who in addition to reiterating the submissions made by learned APP Mr. Dabhi, would also tender the CCTV footage of the incident for perusal of this Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Dabhi would request that this Court may not release the present appellants on regular bail. 5. These appeals are also vehemently objected to by learned Advocate Mr. Suchak, who in addition to reiterating the submissions made by learned APP Mr. Dabhi, would also tender the CCTV footage of the incident for perusal of this Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Suchak would submit that the CCTV footage would clearly show that the appellants had in fact assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons leading to his death and considering the role of appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2022 who had inflicted axe blow on the deceased and the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2022 had inflicted broken tile and an iron utensil (Tagara) blow on the deceased, it is required that this Court may not release the present appellants on regular bail. 6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, who have not submitted anything else. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates for the respective parties and considering the investigation papers which are on record, this Court has considered the following aspects. [1] That the deceased and his accomplices, had come to the area in question, where the appellants were residing, with view to assault the appellants. [2] It also appears that on the date of the incident, in the morning, the appellants and the deceased had an altercation and whereas in retaliation to such altercation, the deceased, had come to the place in question at around 10:30 pm. [3] It also appears from statement of one of the persons accompanying the deceased who had also received serious injuries that the deceased was also carrying a knife for the purpose of such assault. [4] That the appellants were present in a spot, where their presence was absolutely natural, more particularly, on account of fact that their residence were located in and around the area in question. [5] It also appears that the deceased and his party had started the dispute and whereas it also appears that initially one of the accused party, who were present at the spot, had been stabbed by the deceased. [5] It also appears that the deceased and his party had started the dispute and whereas it also appears that initially one of the accused party, who were present at the spot, had been stabbed by the deceased. [6] It also appears more particularly upon viewing of the CCTV footage that the deceased and his party appeared to have come to the locality in question with a clear intention of causing harm to the appellants, more particularly it could be made out that the deceased had entered locality holding a knife in his hand along with his accomplices. [7] It also appears that the weapons used by the appellants were such weapons that could be found at the place of the incident including a broken tile, an iron utensil as well as a stick and whereas as the incident progressed it appears that other dangerous weapons had been used. [8] It also appears that as noted hereinabove that one of the appellant party had been stabbed by the deceased and whereas the same appears to have triggered the incident in question and whereas it also appears that none of the appellants were having any prior planning of the incident, more particularly since it appears from the CCTV footage that all the assailant party were very comfortably dressed as being present in their homes. [9] It also appears that while the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2022 is stated to have assaulted the deceased with the axe, but then in the considered opinion of this Court the fact remains that the deceased and his party had first entered the locality of the appellants with a view to cause harm to the appellants. [10] This Court has also taken into consideration the fact that present appellants are in custody for more than two years, the appellants having been arrested in the month of July, 2020. [11] This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 8. [11] This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40. 8. Having regard to the same, without discussing the evidence in detail, in the considered opinion of this Court, though the role attributed to the present appellants prima facie appears to be serious but in view of the fact that it was the deceased party who had initiated the assault, the present appellants are required to be released on regular bail. In view of the fact that very serious role has been attributed to the present appellants, in the considered opinion of this Court, while releasing the present applicants stringent conditions are required to be imposed. 9. Hence, these appeals are allowed and the appellants are ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. bearing C. R. No. 11210005201230 of 2020 registered with Athvalines Police Station, Dist. Surat on executing a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with one 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 injuries 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] not to enter Surat District for a period of one year except to attend the trial proceedings. The appellants to submit the address where they would be residing out side Surat District to the Investigating Officer as well as to the Court concerned and based upon such address, the learned Court would direct the appellants to report to the nearest Police Station whereas the appellants to mark their presence once every month on the first Monday in the concerned Police Station during the period of one year when they are outside Surat District. [f] furnish the address of residence at Surat after a period of one year to the I.O. and also to the Court and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned ; 10. [f] furnish the address of residence at Surat after a period of one year to the I.O. and also to the Court and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned ; 10. 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. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. 11. It is clarified that the observations of these Court are for the purpose of deciding these appeals and whereas the Court conducting the trial with regard to the FIR in question shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever by these observations. Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2020, the learned Trial Court shall undertake to ensure that the trial proceedings are expedited and concluded as early as possible. These appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted.