Judgment :- 1. Petitioners in the main petition, i.e. Crl.P.1619/15 are accused nos.4 to 6 and 11 and 12 in a criminal case in Crime No.132/14 on the file of Hanur police station, Chamarajanagar District. The petitioner in Crl.P.1620/15 is accused no.13 in the said case. 2. Since the allegations against the petitioners in both these cases relate to one crime number, i.e. 132/14, they are taken up together for common disposal. All the petitioners are in judicial custody and hence they have filed these bail petitions under Section 439, Cr.P.C. separately. After concluding investigation, charge sheet has been filed against 14 persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 448, 427, 307, 302, 324, 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C., inclusive of deceased 1st accused-Hanumantha. 3. Learned HCGP has filed detailed objections opposing the bail applications. 4. The facts leading to the registration of Crime No.132/14 and consequently charge sheet are as follows: a) On the basis of first information lodged by one Jayamma, w/o Halappa, resident of Sundrahalli village, Kollegal Taluk a case came to be registered against these petitioners. The complainant is said to be living in the said village with her children in their farmhouse. . On 7.11.2014, her husband-Halappa had been to the forest with their cattle. At that time, there was some altercation between her husband and Kariyappa @ Doddakariyappa, father of deceased 1st accused, relating to watering of sheep. In this regard, Kariyappa had called his children and son-in-law from Bengaluru and they had threatened Halappa with dire consequences to their lives. b) On 8.11.2014 at 10.00 a.m. in the morning, Jayamma's father had come to their house. At that time, herself, her husband-Halappa, her mother-in-law, Rajamma, father-in-law, Kamegowda and son-Pushparaju were in the house. At about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, about 10 persons came near their house forming an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons like choppers, clubs, long and firewood pieces. Hanumantha, Raju, Karigowda, Nagaraju, Venkatappa, Venkatappa @ Amavase KalaVenkategowda @ Dappotte, Dasa, s/o Dolikunta, Mari, Murthy @ Narasimha Murthy and 8 more persons came in an autorickshaw. All those who came there committed rioting and started abusing all of them. Halappa, husband of the first informant, who was sitting on the phial of the house was assaulted by Hanumantha and Raju with clubs causing severe bleeding injuries. All those who came there committed rioting and started abusing all of them. Halappa, husband of the first informant, who was sitting on the phial of the house was assaulted by Hanumantha and Raju with clubs causing severe bleeding injuries. Herself and other inmates of her house were also assaulted when they attempted to save her husband. c) Being afraid of the serious danger to their lives and limbs, they dragged the injured Halappa to a room inside the house and latched from inside. Then all the accused barged into their house and damaged windows and other articles. Pinga-9th accused assaulted her husband with a chopper and dragged him out of the room and all the accused recklessly assaulted with choppers and murdered him. Even her in-laws were also assaulted. d) It is stated by her that being afraid of all the accused persons, her son-Pushparaju took out a gun and shot in the air, but unfortunately Hanumantha died because of the gun shot at the spot. Later K.... and other family members pacified them. Thus she wanted action to be taken against all the accused who were responsible for the murder of her husband. e) The written first information was lodged on 8.11.2014 at 13.10 hours. 5. Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed bail on the ground that prima facie case is forthcoming against all the petitioners in regard to forming of unlawful assembly along with others near the house of the first informant and committing riot, having held deadly weapons like long, choppers and firewood. It is further argued that without there being any sudden and grave provocation, Halappa was murdered by assaulting him recklessly with choppers and other deadly weapons. Hence he has requested this court to dismiss the bail petitions. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Y.S.Shivaprasad has argued that the ingredients of Section 302, I.P.C. are not made out and the specific overt acts attributed to each petitioner is not forthcoming. He has argued that the allegation against Venkatappa is that he had instigated other accused and was not responsible for the death of the deceased. He has further argued that CW-16 and CW-19 had sustained only simple injuries and the main allegation is against the 9th accused- Pinga who had allegedly assaulted Halappa and dragged him out of the house. 7. He has further argued that CW-16 and CW-19 had sustained only simple injuries and the main allegation is against the 9th accused- Pinga who had allegedly assaulted Halappa and dragged him out of the house. 7. It is argued that the further statement of the first informant was recorded on 10.11.2014 and the overt acts with reference to weapons used have been referred to each of the accused. It is further argued that even if the case of the police were to be accepted as true, accused nos.2, 3 and 9 had assaulted blows on the head of the deceased with choppers and the role of the 3rd accused is minimal. It is further argued that a counter case is registered against the family members of deceased Halappa and others in Crime No.131/14 and that is prior to the registration of Crime No.132/14. Therefore who exactly was the aggressor will have to be found out at the time of trial. It is argued that when the well-wishers of both sides wanted to pacify them by clearing the misunderstanding, Pushparaju, son of the deceased, fired at accused no.1 and the commotion started as a result of the same. Thus he has requested this court to release all the petitioners in view of counter case being registered. 8. Perused records. 9. Post mortem report of deceased Halappa discloses that his death was as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. He had sustained more than 8 external injuries as noted in the last page of the post mortem report. The first injury was lacerated wound over the right prominence of skull measuring 6 cms. x 3 cms. x 1 cm. and it was bone deep running straight. The second injury was an incised wound just above the right eyebrow measuring 2 cms. x 1 cm. The other injuries were incised injuries on different parts of the body and one injury was abrasion over the left temple measuring 1.5 cms. x 1.5 cms.. The last injury was fracture of upper phalete. 10. The injured Dasegowda, s/o Lingegowda who is said to be aged 60 years had sustained 8 injuries out of which 2 are grievous in nature. He had sustained haemotoma on the right side of temporal region measuring 5 cms. x 2 cms. and lacerated injury over the right finger which was bone deep. 10. The injured Dasegowda, s/o Lingegowda who is said to be aged 60 years had sustained 8 injuries out of which 2 are grievous in nature. He had sustained haemotoma on the right side of temporal region measuring 5 cms. x 2 cms. and lacerated injury over the right finger which was bone deep. Karigowda, s/o Halegowda who was in the house of the deceased, had sustained 5 injuries and all of them were simple in nature. 11. Looking to the severe head injuries sustained by the deceased and other injuries on different parts of the body, it would indicate that he had been assaulted severely with a deadly weapons. Similar is the case of Dasegowda who is cited as a witness in the charge sheet. It is very unfortunate that two deaths have taken place in this incident. Deceased Halappa is stated to have assaulted Kariyappa, father of 1st accused-Hanumantha as a result of which all the fourteen accused had come to the house of the complainant to inquire as to why he had assaulted his father. Deceased Halappa was annoyed by the presence of all these 14 persons at a stretch and he asked them how dare enough they were to inquire him. It is further alleged that he scolded them by using filthy language as a result of which Hanumantha got enraged and assaulted him with a chopper on his shoulder. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Y.S.Shivaprasad has submitted a detailed synopsis with a note which discloses that Hanumantha assaulted deceased Halappa with a chopper on his shoulder and soon after seeing the same, Halappa's son, Pushparaju who is a minor, (accused no.2 in the connected case) fetched a gun from the house and fired on Hanumantha as a result of which Hanumantha died at the spot. Suddenly there was free fighting between the two factions and accused nos.2, 3 and 9 inflicted severe blows on the deceased and the rest were engaged in damaging doors, windows and other articles. It is alleged that they caused injuries to CW2 and CW3. 13. Admittedly Hanumantha-1st accused who is stated to have assaulted the deceased Halappa with a chopper on his shoulder is dead. The 2nd accused-Raju is stated to have assaulted the deceased and similarly him severely with weapons. They are not before this court as petitioners. It is alleged that they caused injuries to CW2 and CW3. 13. Admittedly Hanumantha-1st accused who is stated to have assaulted the deceased Halappa with a chopper on his shoulder is dead. The 2nd accused-Raju is stated to have assaulted the deceased and similarly him severely with weapons. They are not before this court as petitioners. Similarly Dasa-10th accused has also assaulted the first informant with a chopper and club. The allegation against accused nos.11 and 12 is that they damaged windows and other articles. Similar is the allegation against accused no.13-Venkatappa. Of course the name of Venkatappa is not found in the detailed first information lodged by Jayamma, wife of deceased. The allegation against accused nos.7 and 8 is that they instigated others to assault. Anyhow accused nos.4 to 6 and 11 to 13 are before this court. 14. As already discussed, these accused did not assault deceased Halappa or Jayamma or Dasegowda. The allegation against all these persons is that they trespassed and barged into the house and damaged doors, windows and other articles and committed serious rioting. All these petitioners are permanent residents of Sundrahalli village and they are agriculturists and they have undertaken to obey any condition imposed upon them. Entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Thus the apprehension of the learned HCGP could be met by imposing suitable conditions. 15. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER I) Both the petitions are allowed. Entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Thus the apprehension of the learned HCGP could be met by imposing suitable conditions. 15. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER I) Both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners who are accused nos.4 to 6 and 11 and 12 (petitioners in Crl.P.1619/15) and accused no.13 (petitioner in Crl.P.1620/15) relating to Crime No.132/14 on the file of Hanur police station, Chamarajanagar District, are granted bail subject to the following conditions: a) each of them shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned court; b) They shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses; c) They shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner; d) They shall not involve themselves in any criminal activities; e) They shall attend the court regularly on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the learned Sessions Judge to hold the trial; f) They shall mark attendance at the jurisdictional police station on every Sunday between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a period of one year from the date of their release from the prison, without fail; g) They shall not visit Sundarahalli village for a period of three months from the date of their release from prison; and h) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.