ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No. 110/2016 of Mehakar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 341, 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. The genesis of the complaint allegations are that, in the Gram Panchayath Election in the year 2015, deceased Satish, who is elder brother of complainant contested for Ladha village and one Eshwar S/o Kishan Rao who is a candidate in the said election stood against him. Satish was defeated in the said election and in that light animosity developed between the complainant and the said Eshwar and his supporters. In that light, on 12.09.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., deceased went out from the house for smoking cigarette near Hanuman Temple, at that time the petitioners and others by constituting unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons came there and abused the deceased in filthy language and at that time Balaji and Dattur caught hold the deceased, Dilip assaulted on the head, Ram assaulted by rod on the back of the head, Arjun by taking the rod from the hands of Ram assaulted the deceased on the right hand and Eshwar assaulted on the left hand of the deceased with rod, then Venkat by receiving the said rod from the hands of Eshwar has assaulted on the right leg and kicked the deceased with his legs. At that time, on hearing the voice and galata, another brother of the deceased came to the spot and separated the quarrel and thereafter the injured was taken to the hospital and during the treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 14.09.2016. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that even though in the earlier complaint, the name of Eshwar, Balaji, Ram, Arjun, Venkat and Attam have been shown with specific overtacts, but subsequently when the charge-sheet has been filed, the names of the said persons have been dropped. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that even though in the earlier complaint, the name of Eshwar, Balaji, Ram, Arjun, Venkat and Attam have been shown with specific overtacts, but subsequently when the charge-sheet has been filed, the names of the said persons have been dropped. It is also contended that in the complaint the only allegation in respect of petitioner No.1 is that he has assaulted the Godawari on her leg and the allegation so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, there were no overtacts, but his name has been subsequently included on the basis of the subsequent statement said to have been recorded on 13.10.2016 wherein petitioner No.2 has also assaulted the deceased with hands and has kicked the deceased with legs. It is further contended that by going through the above said acts, it indicates that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. Further, it is contended that already the charge-sheet has been filed, the petitioners belonging to a respectable family and they have got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of they being absconded and if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and 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 petitioners are the main accused persons who have also involved in the alleged crime. He has also contended that the complaint and other material indicate overtacts of each of the accused persons including the petitioners. He has further contended that the alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life and at this juncture, if the petitioners are released on bail, they may abscond, they may not be available for trial and even they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. 7. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. 7. By going through the contents of the complaint, it indicate that the petitioners were present at the time of alleged incident, but the only allegation against petitioner No.1/accused No.4 is that he has assaulted Godawari, the wife of the deceased with stone on her leg. So far as it relates to petitioner No.2/accused No.5 is concerned, his name has been subsequently included by virtue of the subsequent Statement recorded on 13.10.2016 and the records also indicate that earlier the name of the said petitioner was not even included. In the complaint itself it has been specifically stated about the overtacts of each of the accused persons and the only allegation made against accused No.5 is that he has assaulted the deceased with hands and kicked him with legs. Taking into consideration the inconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses and the complaint, I am of the considered opinion that when the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties and when already the investigation has been completed, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, it would safeguard the interest of prosecution and it would also meet the ends of justice. 8. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 are ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; ii. The petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; iii. The petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer as and when required; iv. The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.