ORDER : Accused No.1 is the petitioner. He has sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The respondent police have registered a case against him and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 114 IPC and Section 301(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3 and 25 of Indian Arms Act. 2. The notice of the petition has been served on the complainant as per Section 15(A) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Nobody has appeared today. 3. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the High Court Government Pleader. 4. Perusal of complaint discloses that the complainant had borrowed Rs.4,000/from one Shobharaj, son of Late Subbegowda and according to him he had repaid the amount to Shobharaj. On 23.01.2017 at about 11.00 p.m. when the complainant was in his house, the petitioner came there and questioned him as to why he had not yet repaid the amount borrowed from his brother. When the complainant said that he had repaid the amount already, it is stated that the petitioner took him towards his house to enquire as to whom he had paid the money. The complainant’s brother Kumara asked the petitioner as to why he was taking his brother with him and then came forward requesting the petitioner for releasing his brother. At that time it is stated that the petitioner brought a gun from his house and shot dead Kumara. 5. In the complaint it is stated that the petitioner shot at the deceased Kumara with a gun. But the learned counsel for the petitioner tries to make out a ground for bail by submitting that with regard to seizure of gun there is some discrepancy in the charge sheet materials. The complainant himself would produce the gun before the investigating officer and therefore it is highly impossible to believe that the petitioner fired at Kumara. This argument cannot be accepted because in the complaint itself it is clearly stated that seeing the petitioner shooting at Kumara, the complainant and two others viz., Nagaraja and Keshavamurhy snatched the gun from the petitioner and probably for this reason he might produce the gun before the Investigating Officer when he came to the village for conducting investigation. So this ground cannot be considered. However the investigating officer has recorded the statements of the eye witnesses. So this ground cannot be considered. However the investigating officer has recorded the statements of the eye witnesses. All of them have stated that it was the petitioner who shot at Kumara. There is one further statement of Keshavamurthy, who is also an eye witness. In this further statement, it is mentioned that it was accused No.2 Somashekara @ Somegowda who instigated the petitioner to kill the deceased Kumara and therefore the petitioner shot at Kumara. If this further statement is seen, it cannot be said that petitioner had intention to shoot at Kumara. Therefore at this stage it can be stated that the intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the deceased Kumara cannot be made out. However it is a matter of trial and the Sessions Court has to appreciate the evidence. At this stage, this discrepancy in the statement can be taken into consideration. Entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. So for all these reasons, I come to the conclusion that bail can be granted by subjecting the petitioner to some stringent conditions. ORDER : (a) Petition is allowed. (b) Petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.28/2017 registered by Alur Police Station, Hassan on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions: (1) Till trial is completed petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned police station once in a week preferably on Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 12 noon. (2) He shall regularly appear before the Court during trial. (3) He shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence.