ORDER JAWAD RAHIM, J.—These petitions are by the accused in Crime No. 55/11 of Periyapatna police station which, after filing of the charge-sheet, is registered in C C.339/11. 2. Crl. P. 2829/11 is by accused No. 11 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest, while the petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 2830/11, 2951/11, 2858/11 and 3336/11 are filed by accused Nos. 8, 9, 4 and 12. Crl. P. 2830/11 is disposed of by a separate order as having become infructuous. 3. From what is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners and Govt. Pleader, prosecution against the petitioners was launched on the basis of a complaint submitted by one Shantilal before the SHO of jurisdictions’ “ lice station at Periyapatna on 4.3.2011 in which it is alleged he is a dealer in gold ornaments, for which purpose he travels to various places. On 3.3.2011 he had gone to Kushalnagar with gold ornaments and visited several shops where he disposed of the same. He collected money from customers and with the remaining jewellery, wanted to return to Mysore. At Periyapatna bus station, he boarded bus No. KA-09-F-4455 enroute Mysore. On Madikeri road, when the bus reached Borehosalli Gate, a white Ambassador car with yellow nameplate overtook the bus and forced the driver to stop. In this manner, the car waylaid the bus and one amongst the occupants of the car entered the bus and asked Shantilal to alight on the pretext that the Inspector of City Crime Branch (CCB) wants to interrogate him. Without giving him any time, the intruder is alleged to have taken out Shantilal and put him in the car where in all there were 6 persons. From that spot, the car moved further and during the short journey, the six occupants including the driver took away the bag containing cash and gold jewellery consisting of nose and ear studs, dangling, etc. When he resisted, he was hit on the head and threatened of dire consequences. After some distance, he was thrown out of the car and they sped away. 4. A report was lodged by the victim on 4.3.2011 narrating the incident as referred to above in which he specifically mentioned that the offence was committed by 6 persons who were the occupants of the car. 5. After some distance, he was thrown out of the car and they sped away. 4. A report was lodged by the victim on 4.3.2011 narrating the incident as referred to above in which he specifically mentioned that the offence was committed by 6 persons who were the occupants of the car. 5. During the course of investigation, 7 persons were arrested and they were subjected to Test Identification on 25.3.2011 in which except one, rest of the arrested persons were identified by Shantilal as offenders who had kidnapped him and decamped with gold articles and cash. Prosecution theory is that the arrested persons were interrogated and on their voluntary statement, several recoveries are made. Subsequently, some more persons were arrested as offenders and in all the inspector has arraigned 12 persons as offenders. 6. Prosecution alleges recovery of stolen properly from petitioner in Crl. P. 2829/11 (accused No. 11), petitioner in Crl. P. 2858/11 (accused No. 9), petitioner in Cri. P. 2951/11 (accused No. 8) and petitioner in Crl. P. 3336/11 (accused No. 4). It is stated they recovered Rs. 10,000/- cash and 29 grams gold jewellery from accused No. 4, while Rs. 340/- cash and 5 gold articles was recovered from accused No. 8, and Rs. 300/- and a watch was recovered from accused No. 9. 7. It is clear that except accused No. 4 alleged to be the one who entered the bus and pulled out Shantilal, others are added subsequently as offenders. In support of the bait plea, learned counsel points out that in the complaint, complainant had referred to 6 persons as offenders whereas the inspector has arraigned in all 12 persons. Besides, it is contended they have been in judicial custody for more than 3 months and are not required for further investigation. In this regard, he refers to the orders passed by this Court in Crl. P. Nos. 2401/11 and 2369/11 filed by accused Nos. 2 and 7 who are admitted to bail and the order passed in Crl. P. 2904/11 by which Shashi (accused No. 10) was admitted to bail. Parity is the main ground canvassed. 8. Per contra, the State has opposed bail on the ground that since each one of them have been identified by the complainant, there is no chance of escape for the petitioners herein. P. 2904/11 by which Shashi (accused No. 10) was admitted to bail. Parity is the main ground canvassed. 8. Per contra, the State has opposed bail on the ground that since each one of them have been identified by the complainant, there is no chance of escape for the petitioners herein. He would submit recovery of gold articles is a clincher to prove nexus between the incident on 3.3.2011 and the petitioners. He further submits petitioners do not stand at par with the accused who have been granted bail by this Court and parity is not available. 9. Keeping in mind what is urged, I have examined the records. It is needless to say the very basis of arrest is not disclosed by the inspector in any of the case papers made available. So far as accused No. 4 (Devaraj) is concerned, he is said to have been identified as the person who entered the bus which is prima facie material to implicate him. But so far as the others are concerned, their indictment is based on the statement given by Ms. Shrishaila, conductor of the bus. Her statement reveals she has disclosed their names and identified all of them as offenders who committed the crime. Such statement is not supported by the complainant’s version of the incident. His version is that one person pulled him out of the bus while other five were in the car. It is rather difficult to hold that the statement of Ms. Shrishaila is enough to implicate the petitioners in the alleged crime. T have referred to her statement for the reason that it appears to be a better part of the prosecution case to indict the petitioners. 10. Be that as it may, as could be seen, except for the petitioner in Crl. P. 3336/11 (Devaraj), other petitioners are arraigned on the basis of further investigation by the 10, and their role is not supported by the statement of the complainant. In similar circumstances even accused No. 2 was granted, bail by this Court on 3.5.2011 in Crl. P. Nos. 2401/11 and 2369/11. Rightly petitioners are using grant of bail to others as parity and it is difficult to reject it on this ground. In the circumstances, I am satisfied petitioners in Crl. In similar circumstances even accused No. 2 was granted, bail by this Court on 3.5.2011 in Crl. P. Nos. 2401/11 and 2369/11. Rightly petitioners are using grant of bail to others as parity and it is difficult to reject it on this ground. In the circumstances, I am satisfied petitioners in Crl. P. Nos.2951/11,2858/11 and 3336/11 have made out a case for grant of bail to release them from judicial custody and the petitioner in Crl. P. 2829/11 has also made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 11. In the result, I pass the following order: Crl. P. No. 2829/11 is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail on the following conditions: (I) He is directed to appear before the investigating officer of Periyapatna Police Station in Crime No. 55/11 (now registered as C.C. 339/11) within one week from today. (II) On his appearance, the investigating officer may arrest him either on the basis of process issued by the trial Court or by himself, but he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the said officer. After arrest and release, he shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and subject himself for interrogation, and shall thereafter report before the SHO of complainant police station once in fifteen days, i.e. Saturday between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. till charge is framed. (III) The investigating officer is permitted to detain him for interrogation or for recovery for four hours during the day. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the District Judge. Mysore, without prior permission. (IV) He shall not tamper with prosecution material or prevail upon witnesses. (V) He shall seek grant of regular bail within three weeks from the date of arrest and release before the jurisdictional Court or if, by then, the case is committed, then before the Sessions Court. 12. Cri. Petition Nos. 2951/11, 2858/11 and 3336/11 are also allowed. Petitioners in each of these petitions are enlarged on bail on the following conditions: (a) They shall execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet is filed or, if the case is committed to sessions, to the Sessions Court. Petitioners in each of these petitions are enlarged on bail on the following conditions: (a) They shall execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet is filed or, if the case is committed to sessions, to the Sessions Court. (b) They shall not tamper with prosecution material or prevail upon witnesses, and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the District Court. (c) They shall report before the SHO of complainant police station once in fifteen days on Saturday between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. till framing of charge.