JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners, who are arrayed as A.4 and A.6 in C.C.No.1035/2013 on the file of JMFC, Kundapura, registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 201 r/w. 149 of IPC, are before this Court praying for enlarging them on bail. 2. It is the case of the prosecution, there were differences between accused No.1 and the deceased Vasudeva Adiga in connection with property dispute and also as A.1 had been acquitted in the cases launched on the complaint filed by the deceased in respect of Forest offences. Therefore, A.1 was nursing grudge against the deceased Vasudeva Adiga. It is further the case of the prosecution, A.1 subsequently hatched a conspiracy with other accused namely A.2 to A.8 comprising of these two petitioners to finish off the deceased. Accordingly, on 7.1.2013 when the deceased Vasudeva Adiga was returning to his house on his motorcycle situated at Vandara village and was on the mud road near his house at about 8.30 p.m., the accused waylaid him by parking two cars bearing Nos.KA-04-MD-7080 and KA-05-MD-7934, thereafter A.4 pulled him down from his motorcycle by putting a rope on his neck; A.3 and A.5 assaulted him with jack lever and club on his head, at which point of time A.6, A.7 and A.8 had held the deceased, thereafter A.3, A.4 tied rope on his neck, strangulated him and committed his murder. Thereafter the accused in order to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder committed by them to screen themselves from legal punishment took the body of the deceased in the car in which they had come near Emmedoddi village, Kadoor taluk, Chickamagalur District and threw the same into Madagada Tank at the said place by tying a stone to it. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances pressed into service to connect the accused are; the motive, the accused having been seen by Cws.3 and 4 near the shop of CW.5 at Bandasale village in their car on 7.1.2013 and thereafter CW.3 having seen the accused at Goliyangadi at about 7.30 p.m. and further the accused having been seen on 7.1.2013 at about 8.15 a.m. and later on the same day at about 9.00 p.m. Apart from this conspiracy hatched by A.1 and A.2 on 4.1.2012 and 13.7.2012 to finish off the deceased coupled with the recovery of car, jack lever and club made at the instance of the accused. He further submitted A.2, A.7 and A.8 in this very case have been granted regular bail and anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.1124/13, 3004/2013 and 4740/2013 respectively. The case of the present petitioners do not stand on a different footing than that of the said accused. They are in custody since 17.1.2013 and 19.1.2013. As the investigation is completed and final report is filed, in the circumstances, they be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the application filed by the petitioners contended, the circumstances that have been pressed into service by the prosecution clearly point towards the guilt of the present petitioners to show that they along with other accused in the case have committed the murder of the deceased. He further submits, the case of this petitioner do not stand on par with the other three accused who have been granted regular bail and anticipatory bail by this Court. He further submitted, the Investigating Agency has collected the call details made by each of the accused to show that they were in touch with each other prior to commission of the offence. Since the statement of the witnesses namely, CWs.3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 32, 33 and 49 coupled with the recovery that has been made in the case makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. Supporting the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the original complainant i.e., mother of the deceased contends, the bail application of A.1 has been rejected by this Court. 5. Supporting the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the original complainant i.e., mother of the deceased contends, the bail application of A.1 has been rejected by this Court. He had approached the Apex Court for enlarging him on bail. The same has come to be dismissed. The original complainant has also challenged the order granting bail to A.2 passed by this Court before the Apex Court, which has directed notice to the said accused. Therefore, he submits since a prima facie case is made out against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 6. Admittedly, all was not well between A.1 and the deceased on account of property dispute and also in view of A.1 having been acquitted in all the criminal cases launched against him on the complaint of the deceased Vasudeva Adiga. Accused Nos.2, 7 and 8 have been granted regular bail and anticipatory bail by this Court. The application filed by A.1 for enlarging him on bail has been dismissed and it is affirmed by the Apex Court. As already pointed out, A.1 is the main culprit in the case as he was nursing grudge against the deceased. The present case stands on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are the movement of the accused prior to committing the offence, after committing the offence and conspiracy hatched by A.1 and A.2 in the house of A.2 as stated by CW.49 coupled with the recovery. The witnesses who speak about these circumstances are CWs.3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 32, 33, 49 and Investigating Officer. The statement of CWs.3, 4 and 5 has come to be recorded on 14.1.2013. Statement of CW.14 is recorded on 26.2.2013 and that of CWs.15 and 16 is recorded on 4.3.2013. Insofar as CWs.32, 33 and 49 is concerned, their statements are recorded on 17.3.2013 and 21.1.2013. The statement of CWs.3, 4 and 5 has come to be recorded on 14.1.2013. Statement of CW.14 is recorded on 26.2.2013 and that of CWs.15 and 16 is recorded on 4.3.2013. Insofar as CWs.32, 33 and 49 is concerned, their statements are recorded on 17.3.2013 and 21.1.2013. Since all these witnesses have come out with the version at a belated point of time, as the material on record reveals initially one Arun Kumar, a friend of the deceased had filed missing complaint on the morning of 8.1.2013 and the mother of the deceased had filed a complaint suspecting the involvement of A.1, his son and uncle in the murder of the deceased on 8.1.2013, the same does not lend credence to place reliance on the same. Further the recovery that has been made in the case is a joint recovery at the instance of the accused, which goes long way to implicate the accused. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused to take their trial. I am also aware of the fact the Court while granting bail has to take into consideration the gravity of the offences, the position of the accused vis-à-vis witnesses in the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, as these petitioners have claimed they are permanent resident of Bangalore and as they have stated that they would abide by any conditions to be imposed on them, since this Court has granted regular bail to A.7 and anticipatory bail to A.8, as the case of these petitioners also stands on par with A.7, in the circumstances, as these accused are in custody since 17.1.2013 and 19.1.2013, I do not find any justifiable reason to decline the request of these petitioners. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:- 1. They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 2. They shall mark their attendance before the respondent/police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial in the case. 3. They shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing.