ORDER C.R. Kumaraswamy, J.—This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon"ble Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail in S.C. No. 332 of 2010 (Crime No. 82 of 2010 of Kulagod Police Station) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has filed the objection statement. 3. The learned Counsel for petitioner has produced the copy of the charge-sheet. I have perused the same. The contents of the FIR found in the charge-sheet discloses that Kulagod Police have registered a case in Crime No. 82 of 2010 against the accused 1 to 19 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25(1) of Arms Act, 1959, on the complaint of Umesh. 4. The case of the prosecution is that there was ill-will between the accused and complainant in connection with Board meeting of the Bank. It is alleged that on 25-6-2010 at about 9.00 a.m. Ravi Siddlingappa Kumbar, Basappa Chennappa Koujalagi, Mallappa Balappa Hattiholi and Shrishail Bhimappa Wali were chatting and they were sitting on katta near the shop of one Mahesh Angadi in the Village. At that time, it is alleged Subhas Kamate went there and watched the above persons for a while and left the place and within a short time Shiddappa Adiveppa Kamate (A1) armed with fodder cutter, Maruthi Shiddappa Kamate armed with Jambia, Shembanna Adiveppa Kamate armed with sickle, Maruthi Laxmappa Kamate armed with axe and Sanju Siddappa Kamate (A3), Balappa Shankarappa Kamate (A4), Annappa Shivalingappa Pawadi (A7), Mahadevappa Shidlingappa Kamate (A10), Shiddappa Ishwatr Kamate (A11), Venkappa Subhas Kamate (A12), Ullas Ramappa Mavinandi (A13), Ishwar Annappa Pawadi (A14), Mahadev Yellappa Kamate (A15), Sanju Bhimappa Mavinandi (A16), went there with common intention formed an unlawful assembly armed with clubs, stones and iron rods. At that place a gunshot was also fired and the said unlawful assembly rushed towards the said Ravi Kumbar and others who were sitting on the said Katte and they abused them and also other Lingayat community leaders. At that place a gunshot was also fired and the said unlawful assembly rushed towards the said Ravi Kumbar and others who were sitting on the said Katte and they abused them and also other Lingayat community leaders. On seeing the group of accused rushing towards them, Ravi Kumbar and others started running, A5 threw chilli powder on them, A1 struck on the right side of the neck of Ravi Kumbar with fodder cutter, A6 dealt a blow with sickle on the hands of Ravi Kumbar, A12 struck a blow on the head of Ravi Kumbar with a club and consequently Ravi Kumbar fell on the ground. Maruthi Kamate (A9) struck with axe on the left leg of Basappa Chennappa Koujalagi, he fell down. Siddappa Adiveppa Kamate (A1) struck on the said Koujalagi with fodder cutter on the cheek etc., Shambanna Adiveppa Kamate (A6) struck on the neck of the Basappa Koujalagi with sickle. Then Maruthi Laxmappa Kamate (A9) hit a blow on the head of Mallappa Balappa Hattiholi with axe. Shambanna Adiveppa Kamate (A6) struck a blow on the neck of said Mallappa Hottiholi with sickle. Maruthi Kamate (A2) struck a blow on the cheek of Malappa with Jambai. The other accused persons threw stones on the above persons and accused persons who were having clubs pointed out the clubs to others and all of them were saying that they are supporters of Subhas Gadigeppa Kamate and he has instructed them to take away the lives of the above persons. On seeing this, Shrishail Bhimappa Wali ran away from the spot. The complainant and others have tried to rescue the injured, but the accused gave life threat to them, as a result, the above persons remained helpless spectators to the incident. There were three deaths. They are Ravi Kumbar, Mallappa Hattiholi and Basappa Chennappa Koujalagi. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR. He has been subsequently implicated in this crime on the basis of further statement of complainant. No specific overt act is attributed against this petitioner. He is in judicial custody for the past one year nine months. 5. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR. He has been subsequently implicated in this crime on the basis of further statement of complainant. No specific overt act is attributed against this petitioner. He is in judicial custody for the past one year nine months. It is also the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that accused 14 i.e. Ishwar A. Pawadi and A17 Siddappa Kuribagi have been released on bail in Crime No. 82 of 2010 of Kulagod Police vide order dated 22nd December, 2011 in Cri. P. No. 11524 of 2011. Therefore, he submits that on the ground of parity, this petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail. 6. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits as under: The FIR is not an encyclopaedia. Mere non-mentioning of the name of the accused at the time of registration of the crime, will not absolve him from wrong doing. During the course of investigation, the statement of the witnesses were recorded. The statement of eye-witnesses disclose that Eshwarappa Shivalingappa Pawadi A20 have assaulted the deceased Mallappa by means of Axe. It is the submission of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was rejected vide Cri. P. Nos. 11182 and 11183 of 2011 on 29-11-2011. In this case, the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR. Even his name is not mentioned in the Inquest Panchanama. His name has been implicated in the crime only on the basis of the further statement of the complainant. Though the statement of eye-witnesses were recorded on 25-6-2010, his name is not mentioned in the inquest panchanama. No plausible explanation is forthcoming as to why the Investigation Officer has omitted to mention the name of the eyewitness in the Inquest Panchanama. It is undisputed fact that there was rivalry between the complainant and the accused in connection with the Management of the Bank. Accused and complainant belongs to different community and there is also a communal disharmony between them. It is the contention of learned Counsel for petitioner that he was no able to go through the charge-sheet thoroughly while arguing the matter before this Court in Cri. P. Nos. 11182 and 11183 of 2011. Accused and complainant belongs to different community and there is also a communal disharmony between them. It is the contention of learned Counsel for petitioner that he was no able to go through the charge-sheet thoroughly while arguing the matter before this Court in Cri. P. Nos. 11182 and 11183 of 2011. Now, he submits that having discovered the facts that the name of petitioner has not been found in the FIR and also his name was not mentioned in the inquest panchanama, and all these things are further development and new circumstances on which he seeks for grant of bail. He further submits that this aspect was not considered by this Court in earlier bail petition. 7. Taking into consideration that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR, even his name is not mentioned in the Inquest Panchanama, though the eye-witness statement was recorded on the date of incident besides there was strong ill-will between the complainant and the accused in connection with Management of the Bank, there is a possibility of implicating the name of the petitioner in the Crime on false ground. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. The petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 1 year 9 months. It is well-settled law that pre-trial detention is bad in law. The petitioner has involved in offence under Section 302 of IPC. This offence is serious in nature. An opportunity should be given to the petitioner to prepare for his defence. Taking into consideration of all these aspect, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail at this stage. In the result, I pass the following.-- ORDER This bail petition is allowed conditionally. Petitioner is granted with bail. He shall be released on bail in Crime No. 82 of 2010 of Kulagod Police Station (S.C. No. 332 of 2010) on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge on the following conditions.-- 1. The petitioner shall not interfere with the prosecution witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. 2. He shall not commit offence while on bail. 3. He shall co-operate with the trial. 4. 30,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge on the following conditions.-- 1. The petitioner shall not interfere with the prosecution witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. 2. He shall not commit offence while on bail. 3. He shall co-operate with the trial. 4. If any condition is violated, bail entails cancellation.