Judgment : 1. This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.619/2012. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 5 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the alleged incident has taken place during night on 20.7.2012. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the mother and brother of the deceased are the eyewitnesses, but as per the complaint, it was against four unknown persons. He has further submitted that the inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 21.7.2012 and at that time, statement of mother of the deceased and also C.W.9 one Puttaswamy were recorded. Even at that time, the name of the present petitioner or names of any other accused persons has not been mentioned. It is reflected in paragraph No. 11 of the inquest mahazar proceedings. He has submitted that if really they are the eyewitnesses to the incident same could have been stated in the complaint at the first instance and there was no necessity to mention as four unknown persons and that it is only on 22.7.2012 i.e., two days after the alleged incident, further statement of mother, brother and other alleged eye witnesses said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein the name of the present petitioner and other accused persons have been mentioned. Hence, the learned counsel has submitted that it is a deliberate act on the part of the complainant and other family members to involve petitioner in the alleged offences. He has also submitted that the present petitioner is not unknown to either complainant or his family members, because in their further statement it is mentioned that three months earlier to the incident, the petitioner along with other accused persons came and threatened the father of the deceased. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution and the present petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and that in the similar circumstances, this Court has granted bail. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution and the present petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and that in the similar circumstances, this Court has granted bail. In this regard, he has relied upon the order passed by this Court dated 23.7.2013 in Crl.P.No.2402/2013 and also the order dated 29.4.2008 passed in Crl.P.No. 1488/2008. 4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the incident who have clearly stated about the involvement of the present petitioner and also assault made by the present petitioner on the head of the deceased with knife. Hence, the prosecution has placed prima facie material to show the involvement as well as assault made by the present petitioner and there is a recovery at the instance of the present petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail 5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court and also other materials placed on record. 6. In the complaint lodged on 20.7.2012 at about 23.15 hours it is mentioned that four unknown persons all of a sudden came holding deadly weapons in their hands and assaulted the deceased Manjunath. At the first instance the complainant and other family members of the complainant were not at all knowing the assailants and were not having any acquaintance of the assailants. Even during inquest mahazar proceedings the statement of mother of the deceased has been recorded and during that period also she has not at all stated about the involvement of the present petitioner and only stated that four unknown persons. C-W.9 Puttaswamy has also stated that unknown persons. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was only on 22.7.2012 i.e., two days after the incident while recording the further statement of the complainant and other witnesses, the prosecution has introduced the names of assailants who are said to be assaulting the deceased. If really the mother, brother and other witnesses are the eyewitnesses to the incident, then naturally they could have mentioned the name 01 the assailants in the complaint itself since the materials placed on record goes to show that the complainant and his family members were knowing the present petitioner earlier. If really the mother, brother and other witnesses are the eyewitnesses to the incident, then naturally they could have mentioned the name 01 the assailants in the complaint itself since the materials placed on record goes to show that the complainant and his family members were knowing the present petitioner earlier. All these materials on record goes to show that it is only subsequently, the present petitioner has been involved in the case as one of the assailants. 7. I have also perused the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Now the investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, to secure the presence of the present petitioner before the trial Court, he can be admitted to bail. 8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner-accused No.5 is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.619/2012, subject to following conditions: - (i) Petitioner-accused No.5 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court. (ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. Petitioner shall appear before concerned trial Court regularly.