Judgment :- (1) These petitions have been filed under Section 439, Cr. P.C. seeking bail having been arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC by Byatarayanapura Police, Bangalore City. (2) The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under ; One Sri G. Venkatesh, brother of deceased G. Chandrashekhar alias Sable Chandru, filed complaint to the Police for the above said offences. His deceased brother G, Chandrashekhar, aged about 34 years, had a cable office in Bapnjinagar 3rd Main. On 27- 6-2008 in the night, there was birthday celebration of the son of the complainant and hence, his relatives, including deceased G. Chandrashekhar and the employee of the deceased by name Praveen. had come to his house. At about 11.45 p.m. the deceased and Praveen went outside the house and suddenly, the complainant heard the cries and shouting and immediately went out and saw that the deceased G. Chandrashekhar was surrounded by five persons. Amongst them, two persons assaulted on the deceased with a long and thus the deceased fell down, another two persons hit on the head of the deceased with stones and one more was standing nearby. As the said accused threatened the complainant and others by showing long, they were not in a position to intervene to protect the deceased. After the incident, the said three persons went on the motorcycle; and two persons ran away. The deceased had died on the spot and his brain was exposed. The complainant was not able to know the cause for the murder of the deceased at the hands of the assailants and by giving the description of the accused, filed the complaint stating that amongst the five persons, he named accused Nos. 1 and 2 who caused assault with the longs. He has also stated that he would identify the accused, in case if they are shown. He filed the complaint on these facts, which came to be registered in Crime No. 280/2008 by Byatarayanapura Police for the above said offences. During the course of the investigation the petitioners have been arrested. 1 and 2 who caused assault with the longs. He has also stated that he would identify the accused, in case if they are shown. He filed the complaint on these facts, which came to be registered in Crime No. 280/2008 by Byatarayanapura Police for the above said offences. During the course of the investigation the petitioners have been arrested. (3) The petitioners submit that they are innocent they have not committed any crime and they have been falsely implicated by the Police, It is also their submission that their names do not appear in the complaint and there are no overt acts attributed against them and they are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed for their release on bail. On these grounds, they have sought for grant of bail. (4) The learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petitions and submits that there is prima facie material against the petitioners for the offences registered and in case if they are released on bail, there is possibility of their causing threat, force coercion etc. to the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, he has sought for dismissal of the petitions, (5) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned High Court Government Pleader. (6) So far as the part played by the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 6028/2009 is concerned, he caused assault with stone, the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 6763/2009 caused assault with brick and the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5715/ 2009 has not played any role and was standing near the place of incident. (7) The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order dated 17-6-2009 passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 1572/2009 wherein accused No. 3 was released on bail. Though in the complaint the name of the petitioner in the above said case is not revealed. later. during the investigation it is stated that the said accused also caused assault on the deceased with long. Any how, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that accused No. 3 was in custody from 1-7-2008, granted bail to him. In the circumstances, the petitioners as well relying upon the said decision and on the principle of parity have claimed bail. Any how, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that accused No. 3 was in custody from 1-7-2008, granted bail to him. In the circumstances, the petitioners as well relying upon the said decision and on the principle of parity have claimed bail. (8) As could be seen from the post-mortem examination report, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple chop injuries sustained and these chop injuries can be caused by the use of long and not by stone or brick. So, taking into consideration the prima facie facts that the petitioners were also arrested on 1-7-2008 and have been in custody for a long period and they are not directly responsible for the death, they cannot be denied the bail. So far as accused No. 6 (petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5715/2009) is concerned, there is no overt act attributed and hence, I am of the opinion that in view of the above said decision of this Court in Crl. P. No. 1572/2009, the petitioners are entitled to the bail sought for by imposing certain conditions. In the circumstance, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below with the further following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall not cause any threat, force, coercion or influence on the prosecution witnesses: (ii) that they shall attend the Court regularly on all the dates of hearing. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.