ORDER JAWAD RAHIM, J.—These two petitions are by the accused arraigned for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 363, 170 and 395 of IPC in Cr. No. 55/11 on the file of the respondent-police. 2. Petitions are clubbed and disposed of by this common order. 3. The substance of allegation on the basis of which they were arraigned reveals, the complainant Shanthilal was travelling in a passenger bus with the jewellery. The petitioners along with others are alleged to have followed the bus in a white Ambassador car. When the bus reached Sorehosahalli gate near the Madikeri road, the accused obstructed the way for the bus. They waylaid the bus and holding threat to the passengers, the complainant was taken into their car from the KSRTC bus No. KA-09 F-4455. After driving for sometime, they snatched the jewellery bag from the complainant and cash and they left the complainant at same place. In this manner, the dacoity was committed. In the report, six persons were alleged to have committed the offences, but subsequently, accused Nos.7 and 8 were added. The petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2401/11 is ranked as accused No. 2, while the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2369/11 is arraigned as accused No. 7. 4. During investigation, the police officers succeeded in recovering some of the gold articles. It is alleged, from the possession of accused No. 7, four gold articles were recovered apart from cash of Rs. 21,000/-, while from the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2401/11, an amount of Rs. 28,000/- was recovered. On this basis, they are indicted as accomplice of the other accused. 5. In support of bail, it is urged that, test identification was conducted insofar as accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 8 are concerned, but prosecution does not dispute, no test identification parade was conducted insofar as the petitioners are concerned. From the materials so far collected, all that manifestes is, from accused No. 7, gold articles are recovered, while from accused No. 2, cash is the only recovery. Whether the gold articles recovered belong to the complainant is an issue for investigation further. At this juncture, they are seeking bail. 6. The second ground urged is that petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2401/11, (accused No. 2) is also doing jewellery business like the complainant they know each other. Whether the gold articles recovered belong to the complainant is an issue for investigation further. At this juncture, they are seeking bail. 6. The second ground urged is that petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2401/11, (accused No. 2) is also doing jewellery business like the complainant they know each other. Therefore, the complainant could not have missed to mention his name in the first report itself if he was the offender. My attention is drawn to the mahazar where after mentioning the names of the other accused, petitioners’ name are sought to be introduced later. 7. Be that as it may, interrogation is complete. Recovery is also alleged to have been effected. Petitioners undoubtedly are local residents available for being subjected to trial. Considering the nature of the offences and the punishment that will visit them if proved guilty, I am satisfied with appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution, they could be trusted with bail. 8. Hence, I pass the following order: Petitions are allowed and bail is granted to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners in each case shall be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate or the learned trial Judge if the case is committed. (ii) They shall not tamper or indulge or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses. (iii) They shall not leave the place without prior permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate. (iv) They shall mark their attendance before the S.H.O., of the concerned police station once in 15 days, i.e., on Saturdays between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. till the commencement of trial.