ORDER The petitioners have filed this petition for bail having been arrested under Sections 302, 201, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The relevant facts for the purpose of this petition are as under: One Shivanna, the cousin brother of Beeralinga the deceased, submitted a complaint to the police in which it is claimed that the deceased had married Savithri, the daughter of Sannadoddegowda and the marriage was performed about 17 to 18 years prior to the incident. Through the marriage, deceased and Savithri had four children by name Renuka, Ravikumara, Mohankumari and Boregowda. The deceased was in the habit of consuming liquor and was quarrelling with his wife and because of this reason, the petitioners who are the brothers, brother-in-law of Savithri used to come and quarrel with the deceased. 3. The villagers used to intervene and it was a routine thing in their life and a year prior to the incident, Savithri, the wife of the deceased came to her parental home along with children and thereafter, she was staying with her parents. After some time, the deceased Beeralinga had come to the village and in this regard, there was a panchayat and both the deceased and Savithri the wife were advised and were residing together. 4. The deceased was selling household articles and food grains etc., and used to consume liquor and about 7-8 months earlier to the incident, there was a quarrel in this regard and again, his wife Savithri and the children went back to her parental home. The deceased was doing labour work and was using the wages for consuming liquor and was not looking after his wife and children. A complaint was also filed to the police against the deceased. The wife of the deceased with the help of her brothers and members of parental family, cultivated the land of the deceased and about two months earlier to the incident, when they went to the land for the purpose of planting tobacco, there was a quarrel and the deceased had objected the cultivation. Thereby the land was kept uncultivated and in the circumstances, the wife of the deceased, her brothers were fed up with the conduct of the deceased and had quarreled with him. Thereby the land was kept uncultivated and in the circumstances, the wife of the deceased, her brothers were fed up with the conduct of the deceased and had quarreled with him. So also they had threatened to cause his death but the elders of the village had advised them not to do so and that they will not get any benefit of causing the death of a drunkard. Even thereafter, the deceased used to quarrel with his wife and the children and thereby, the relations were strained. 5. On 20-2-2009, the complainant and one Kumar and others had gone to coolie work and while they were returning at about 4 p.m., they saw the deceased who was coming from the opposite direction and at that time, the deceased started quarrelling with them and said that since six months his wife and children have not been sent and asked them as to whether they have been born to their father? He abused them in vulgar language and immediately, the petitioners and others brought the clubs shouting against the deceased and stating that he is neither looking after his wife and children and nor allowing them to look after them and caused assault with the clubs on the head and other parts of the body. The complainant and others intervened and they saw that the deceased had sustained severe injuries on the head and in such situation, his hands and legs were tied and was taken to the village. The villagers advised the petitioners and others to take him to the hospital but it is stated that the accused and the petitioners caused the threat stating that there is no justification for the deceased to live and asked them not to intervene. Ultimately, it is stated as the deceased was not taken to the hospital and later the petitioners and other accused said to have stamped on the body of the deceased and ultimately, the deceased I died at the place. It is in these circumstances, a complaint came to be filed on these facts which came to be registered in Crime No. 160 of2009 of Holenarasipura Police Station for the offences aforesaid. 6. It is in these circumstances, a complaint came to be filed on these facts which came to be registered in Crime No. 160 of2009 of Holenarasipura Police Station for the offences aforesaid. 6. The petitioners submit that they are innocent and have not committed any crime and further it is their submission that the offence does not fall within the provision of Section 302 of the IPC and that it may be at the most for an offence punishable under Section 304(II) of the IPC. 7. So also, it is their submission that one accused has been released on bail by this Court in Cri. P. No. 6316 of 2009 and that there are similar set of allegations against the petitioners as well and further submit that the incident occurred because of the quarrel by the deceased with them and the wife of the deceased. Therefore, they submit that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation and the conduct of the deceased all along his life for not looking after his wife and children. They also submit that they will abide by any conditions that may be imposed against them for their release. On these grounds, they sought for grant of bail. 8. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is prima facie material against the petitioners for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and in fact, if the petitioners are released on bail, there is possibility to interfere with the prosecution witnesses and in the circumstances, the petition has to be rejected. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader. 10. The point that arises for my consideration is: ''Whether the petitioners are entitled to the bail sought for?" 11. While considering the bail application in Crime No. 6316 of 2009 this Court has held that the offence alleged against the petitioners falls within the purview of Section 304(11) of the IPC. It is relevant to note that the deceased was drunkard consuming liquor all along his life wasting the wages for his bad habit. It is in these circumstances he did not look after his wife and children. Hence, the wife of the deceased along with children were staying in her parental house. Despite that, the deceased used to go to the parental house of his wife and was abusing them in vulgar language. It is in these circumstances he did not look after his wife and children. Hence, the wife of the deceased along with children were staying in her parental house. Despite that, the deceased used to go to the parental house of his wife and was abusing them in vulgar language. In such circumstances, the incident of assault was caused by the brother, i.e., the 1st petitioner and brother-in-law, i.e., 2nd petitioner of Savithri by causing assault with clubs. So, prima facie taking into consideration these material facts which have been brought on record, I do not find that the provision of Section 302 of the IPC is attracted. There is material against the petitioners for the offences under Section 304(II) of the IPC. 12. It is relevant to note that the said offence is punishable with imprisonment for ten years and so far as the apprehension of the prosecution about causing threat or force to the prosecution witnesses, some severe conditions may be imposed. So taking into consideration the nature of the offence, the conduct of the deceased and the reason for assault, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the bail application can be considered by imposing certain conditions. In the circumstances, I answer the point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/each, with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, with the further following conditions: 1. That the petitioners shall attend the Court on each of the hearing dates; and 11. The petitioners shall not cause any threat, force or coercion to prosecution witnesses.