ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. Perused the records. 2. It is the case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet that on 15.09.2016, the PSI (Law & Order), Gadag Town Police Station was on bandobast duty in connection with Lord Ganesh immersion procession. He received a credible information that, at about 5 AM some 78 persons were collected near Rayachuteshwar Temple Road with deadly weapons for the purpose of committing dacoity, etc. On receiving such information the said P.S.I. along with his staff rushed to the said place. He observed 810 persons in a group were holding deadly weapons in their hands and stopping the vehicles which are coming on that road. Immediately Police have attacked those 78 persons but they could only catch the petitioner on the spot. On enquiry by him, he disclosed that they were gathered there for the purpose of committing dacoity. They examined the vehicles, the motorcycle which were parked there, the Police found some deadly weapons like long, chilly powder, etc. It is alleged that the petitioner has disclosed names of other accused persons. 3. Earlier this petitioner had filed a petition before this Court in Crl. P. No. 101428/2016. This Court had secured presence of the complainant to ascertain the details with reference to, when the information was received, how far the place of alleged offence is situated from the Police Station and whether the panchas who are available to the Police are the regular panchas, etc. for which suitable answers were given by the complainant and it is also submitted by the complainant that the investigation is already completed and charge-sheet is prepared. 4. At this juncture, the Court has observed that after the charge-sheet is filed, the petitioner is entitled to seek his enlargement from the jurisdictional Court. Accordingly, he has approached the jurisdictional Court and the Jurisdictional Court has rejected the bail only on the ground that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may help the other accused to abscond and he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, he has approached the jurisdictional Court and the Jurisdictional Court has rejected the bail only on the ground that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may help the other accused to abscond and he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. These two grounds are, at this stage, are not tenable because of the simple reason, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he is a habitual offender and all the accused persons are conspiring together for the purpose of committing any offence earlier or the other accused committed any offence subsequently. Further, all the witnesses are the Police witnesses in this case. Therefore, in my opinion, when the petitioner was already arrested on 16.09.2016 and since then he has been in custody the charge-sheet appears to have already been filed, what has to be established during the trial is that the accused persons were gathered there for the purpose of committing dacoity. Except the voluntary statement of the accused, no materials are available on record that they were gathered there for the purpose of dacoity so as to attract the offence u/S 399 and 402 of IPC. Under the above said facts and circumstances, when no previous bad antecedents are alleged against the accused, particularly the incident happened on the Ganesh Immersion procession day, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the following order is passed. ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with C.C. No. 1944/2016 on the file of JMFC1 Court, Gadag, registered for the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of IPC, on the following conditions. 1. The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for genuine reasons. 4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.