ORDER : After arguing the matter for sometime, Sri. Y.S. Shiva Prasad learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition on behalf of petitioner No.2 herein (accused No.4). 2. His submission is placed on record. This petition stands dismissed as withdrawn as against petitioner No.2 (‘Chandra’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in a land dispute between the two families, the police have registered a false case against four accused persons. Accused No.1 and 2 have already been granted bail in a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C, before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara in Crl.Misc.No.5244/2016 vide order dated 15.12.2016. However, the petition filed by the petitioners herein has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this Petition. 4. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all allegations are false and on the ground of parity as accused No.1 and 2 have already been granted bail, this petition may also be allowed and petitioner No.1 be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submits that petitioner No.2 herein has snatched away the ‘Mangalya’ chain of complainant’s wife and petitioner No.1 helped him by holding complainant’s wife. In the circumstances, learned Sessions Judge having considered all the material on record has rightly dismissed the petition filed by these petitioners. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this petition. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the complaint. 7. It is stated by the complainant in the complaint that the dispute emanated upon the coconut palm leaf falling in the land belonging to the petitioners. The medical certificate issued by the Public Health Center, PHC, Hanur shows that complainant’s wife has suffered simple injuries. The learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to accused No.1 and 2. The allegations against petitioner No.2 herein is that he has snatched the chain. Allegation against petitioner No.1 is holding complainant’s wife to help 2nd petitioner to snatch the chain and this allegation is strongly denied by the petitioners. 8. In any event, fact remains that accused No.1 and 2 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, on the ground of parity, petitioner No.1 herein (Rachappa) also deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. 8. In any event, fact remains that accused No.1 and 2 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, on the ground of parity, petitioner No.1 herein (Rachappa) also deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. In the result, it is directed that petitioner No.1 shall be enlarged on bail on the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner No.1 shall surrender before the investigating officer of the jurisdictional police station on or before 20.02.2017 and in such an event, petitioner No.1 shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; (ii) Petitioner No.1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii) Petitioner No.1 shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and appear before him as and when called for; (iv) Petitioner No.1 shall mark his attendance in the Jurisdictional Police Station on 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month between 10 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. till charge sheet is filed; (v) Petitioner No.1 shall not involve in any criminal activities; (vi) If the petitioner No.1 violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail. Petition allowed.