JUDGMENT : S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. 1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 have filed the petition seeking to be enlarged on bail with regard to their detention in connection with the proceedings in Crime No. 88/2019 of Hebbagodi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. It is noticed that this Court has enlarged accused Nos. 5 and 6 on bail by order dated 30.05.2019. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are similarly placed and in light of the common object that is attributed to all of the accused, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity. 4. The facts that are made out in the complaint are that on 10.03.2019, information was received by the Sub-Inspector of police regarding an accident near Branded Layout Ananthanagar Road. It is stated that a "concrete mixer lorry" had dashed a two wheeler and in that accident a lady and a boy had suffered injuries and the boy succumbed to injuries and died. When police went to the spot, they found a person lying on the road side and on enquiry, they found out that it was the driver of the lorry who is responsible for the accident. It is stated that though the driver of the lorry was taken for medical treatment he succumbed to the injuries suffered during the assault by the public accident and has died. The petitioners have been in custody since 11.03.2019. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader states that the investigation is almost complete and charge sheet would be filed. It is also to be noted that the C.C. TV footage has been seized and on the basis of the C.C. TV footage, investigation is in progress. 6. It is the contention of the petitioners that it was not a pre-meditated offence and without admitting, even if it were to be true, it is an offence that would attract Section 304 of IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder as envisaged in the latter part of the Section 304). It is further stated that the petitioner No. 3 is a student and his continued detention would affect his educational career. It is further stated that the petitioner No. 3 is a student and his continued detention would affect his educational career. It is also contended that there were other people present at the spot and a false case has sought to be filed against the petitioner. 7. The petitioners had approached learned Sessions Judge and sought for being enlarged on bail and the said petition came to be dismissed. No reason has been assigned by the Sessions Court while rejecting the application. 8. It is to be noted that as the major part of the investigation is complete and also taking note of the fact that it is not a case of any pre-meditated commission of offence and taking note of the fact that petitioner No. 3 is said to be a student, pursuing 6th Semester B.Com Course, it would be appropriate to consider releasing the petitioners on bail. It is also to be noted that complaint had been filed against the unknown persons and in light of Section 149, the question as to the extent of involvement of the petitioners can be ascertained only during the trial. Further the petitioners are also entitled for bail on the principle of parity. 9. Accordingly, petition is allowed subject to the following conditions: (i) Each of the petitioners shall execute personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth. (iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence the witness in any manner. (iv) The petitioners shall physically present themselves and mark their attendance before the concerned SHO once in a month till conclusion of trial. (v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioners, howsoever minor, shall result in automatic cancellation of bail.