ORDER : 1. Petitioners are accused nos. 6 and 7 in Crime No. 485/2016 registered by the Jayaprakash Nagar police station for the offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 427, 302 and 149 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Chandrashekar R.P. learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and Sri. B. Visweswaraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 3. Case of the prosecution is that the husband of the complainant was done to death by assaulting him with deadly weapons. 4. Sri. Chandrashekar R.P. learned counsel for the petitioners adverting to the contents of the complaint and subsequent statement of the complainant recorded by the Police, submitted that the complaint was initially lodged against five persons. They have been identified by the complainant in the Police Station. The petitioners herein were shown by the Police to the complainant stating that the first petitioner was the driver and the second petitioner had shown the house of the deceased. Thus, complainant has not identified either of the petitioner on her own. He further submits that the complainant is the wife of the deceased and an eyewitness. Neither in the complaint nor in the further statement, she has named these petitioners. He also adverted to the charge sheet and submitted that there is no overtact alleged against the petitioners. With these submissions he prays that the petition be allowed and the petitioners to be enlarged on bail. 5. Sri B. Visweswariah, learned HCGP, opposing the petition, submits that the offence alleged against the accused is serious one. Accused No. 6 (petitioner no. 1 herein) is the driver of the vehicle in which the assailants were traveling and accused no. 7 (Petitioner No. 2 herein) has facilitated the assailants by showing the house. Therefore, all the offences alleged by the prosecution are against the petitioners also. With these submissions, he prays that the petition be dismissed. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the State. 7. In the complaint, the complainant has not named the petitioners herein. A careful reading of further statement dated 16.09.2016 shows that, the Police Inspector has shown accused Nos. 6 and 7 and mentioned that accused no. 6 was the driver and accused no. 7 had shown the house and that they were also involved in the conspiracy. 7. In the complaint, the complainant has not named the petitioners herein. A careful reading of further statement dated 16.09.2016 shows that, the Police Inspector has shown accused Nos. 6 and 7 and mentioned that accused no. 6 was the driver and accused no. 7 had shown the house and that they were also involved in the conspiracy. In the charge sheet, no specific over-tact is alleged against these two petitioners. What is alleged against accused no. 6 in the charge-sheet is that he is the driver and accused no. 7 has shown the house. 8. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits, in my view the petitioners shall be entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners/ accused Nos. 6 and 7 be enlarged on bail in Cr. No. 485/2016 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one local surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. (iii) Petitioners shall not manipulate or hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (iv) Petitioners shall not involve himself in any criminal activities. (v) Petitioners shall attend the trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing subject to orders of Trial Court. Petition is allowed.