JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner is accused 3 arressted during investigation and is facing charge along with five others for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is under investigation in Crime No.371 of 2009. He is in judicial custody from 20-12-2009. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.M. Navaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The case relates to death of one Mohan Reddy alias Anil on 16-12-2009. According to the report received at the complainant police station submitted by the maternal uncle of Mohan Reddy, Mohan Reddy was in love with Kavya. However, her parents had finalized alliance of marriage with accused 1-Mohan Raju. Despite such finalization of marriage proposal, Mohan Reddy continued to pester Kavya to marry him. Thus the first accused Mohan Raju along with five others hatched conspiracy to do away with his life and accordingly on 15-12-2009 Mohan Raju along with the petitioner and others visited the house of Mohan Reddy and reprimanded him. They threatened him of dire consequences if he continues to contact Kavya. Thereafter on 16-12-2009, the petitioner herein Shekar Reddy along with accused 1 and other accused visited the house of Mohan Reddy and summoned to a place in Begur, when he reached there accused 1-Mohan Raju and accused 2 forced him into a vehicle and took him to an unknown destination from Malasandra and killed him by stabbing on the neck in Tamil Nadu and then disposed of his body. On the basis of such report petitioner and others came to be arrested and all those who claimed to have knowledge of the incident were examined by the Investigating Officer. Amongst them the witnesses, who witnessed the incident who had brought Mohan Reddy from Malasandra from where accused 1 took away, is the allegation against the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and had no knowledge of what accused 1 and 2 would do. In fact he denies he has summoned the victim at the instance of accused 1 on 16-12-2009. 5. Per contra, Sri Navaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, would contend that the charge against the petitioner is not only for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC but for conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC. In fact he denies he has summoned the victim at the instance of accused 1 on 16-12-2009. 5. Per contra, Sri Navaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, would contend that the charge against the petitioner is not only for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC but for conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC. Since the principle act committed is result of conspiracy, petitioner is equally liable for committing is the said offence. Legally such ground urged by the State is liable to be considered which are manifest from the statement of witnesses. The role played by the petitioner is much prior to the alleged incident and in such circumstance, since he has already been interrogated, I do not find his detention is further justified. Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition, subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioner is admitted to bail on his execution of personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. (2) He shall not leave the Sessions jurisdiction without prior permission. (3) He shall mark his attendance at the jurisdictional police station where he resides once in 15 days on Sundays between 9 a.m and 7 p.m. (4) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.