ORDER : The petitioner who has arraigned as accused No.3 in the FIR and accused No.7 in the charge sheet has filed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.46/2016 of Gogi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 504, 506, 109, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. The averments of the complaint are that, There was civil dispute between the deceased-Bheemanna and the accused persons in respect of Sy.No.159 situated at Kakkasgera village and the said suit was decided against the accused persons. When that being the case, on 23.06.2016 in between 9.45 a.m., and 10.15 a.m., when the deceased-Bheemanna was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-33/K-5208 along with Bhimashankar as a pillion, accused Nos.1 to 8 by constituting an unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons wrongfully restrained the deceased and have assaulted the deceased with an axe and machchu and thereafter, they have threatened Bhimashankar. The deceased-Bheemanna succumbed to the injuries and a complaint came to be filed against the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged incident. The only allegation made against the petitioner is that earlier to the incident, he has threatened the deceased and others to take away their life. He has further contended that though at the earlier instance petitioner has been shown as present at the scene of incident and actively participated, but subsequently, further statement of the complainant which has been recorded on 25.06.2016 indicates that the petitioner was not present at the place of incident. He has further contended that the other accused persons namely, accused Nos.5, 6 and 8 have already been released on bail by this Court. The petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of the accused persons who have already been released on bail, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the complaint discloses that the petitioner was present and has actively participated in the alleged incident only with an intention to take revenge against the deceased. He has further contended that there are eyewitnesses to the incident. The petitioner has committed heinous offence of murder which is punishable death or imprisonment for life and he is the main person behind the alleged incident. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the contents of the complaint, FIR and other material produced along with the petition. 7. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint, the alleged incident has taken place on 23.06.2016 in between 9.45 a.m., and 10.15 a.m. Though the allegations made in the complaint would indicate the presence of the petitioner, but further statement of the complainant-Sharanagouda recorded on 25.06.2016 shows that at the time of the alleged incident the petitioner-Mailari was not present on the spot. When the petitioner was not present at the place of incident and has not committed any overt-act in the alleged crime and when the other accused persons namely accused Nos.5, 6 and 8 have already been released on bail by this Court, I feel that petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. 8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses; (iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail. (v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission.