ORDER : 1. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C. No.195/2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, D.K., Mangaluru. Bantwala Town Police have charge sheeted the petitioners and seven others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 448, 302, 120B and 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. It is alleged that CW.26 was involved in the cases of murders of one Rajesh Poojari and Santu @ Candle Santu. It is further alleged that the accused were labouring under the impression that Mohammed Ashraff, the younger brother of CW.26 was financially supporting the murderers of Santu and Rajesh Poojari and therefore they conspired to commit his murder. It is alleged that in execution of such conspiracy on 21.6.2017 at 11 a.m. in Kallige village when Mohammed Ashraff was proceeding in his autorickshaw bearing No.KA 19 AB 388 the accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with talwars, daggers, knives accosted him, assaulted him with the said weapons and caused his death. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the complaint was filed against six unknown persons and later CWs.1 to 3 are projected as eye witnesses. He further submits that CWs.1 and 2 as per their own statements did not identify the petitioners during test identification parade and for CW.3 no test identification parade was conducted for identifying accused. He further submits that there is no prima facie material against the petitioners and they are in judicial custody since more than one year and trial has not yet begun. 4. Smt. Namitha Mahesh B G, learned HCGP submits that CWs.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses and petitioners are habitual offenders and are involved in large number of cases involving heinous crimes and if bail is granted they are likely to tamper the witnesses. 5. In bail petition Court has to first consider whether there is prima facie incriminating material against the accused. Only then petitioners’ criminal antecedents become relevant. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners initially the case was registered against unnamed six accused. Thereafter complainant by his further statement dated 21.6.2017 said to have implicated seven persons. Even in that further statement he did not name the accused. 6. Only then petitioners’ criminal antecedents become relevant. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners initially the case was registered against unnamed six accused. Thereafter complainant by his further statement dated 21.6.2017 said to have implicated seven persons. Even in that further statement he did not name the accused. 6. CWs.1 and 2 in their further statements dated 09.08.2017 state that they could not identify the petitioners during test identification parade and on I.O. showing them photographs of accused Nos.1 to 6 they identified. So far as the other alleged eye witness CW.3, she states that I.O. showed the assailants to her and asked her to identify and she identified. None of the statements of aforesaid witnesses show that they were previously acquainted with the petitioners. 7. Having regard to such quality of statements of the alleged eye witnesses it cannot be said that there is prima facie material against the petitioners regarding their identification. The petitioners are in judicial custody for more than one year. It is submitted that the charges are not yet framed. Under such circumstances, involvement of the petitioners in other cases becomes irrelevant. Therefore, the petition is allowed. 8. Petitioners are granted bail in S.C. No.195/2017 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru. They shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions. 1) The petitioners shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/and furnish two sureties in the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance; 2) They shall appear before the Court as and when required for the purpose of trial; 3) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses by threats, inducement or otherwise; 4) They shall not visit the Ramanagara village till the completion of the trial. 5) They shall mark their attendance before the SHO of the respondent police station on alternate Sunday of each month till the trial is completed. 6) They shall not indulge into activities similar to the one alleged against them. If petitioners jump any of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.