JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Criminal Petition No. 200506/2019 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 9 and 5 and Criminal Petition No. 200507/2019 is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to grant regular bail to the petitioners in Crime No. 171/2017 of Chadachan Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 166, 177, 182, 191, 192, 193, 195, 195-A, 199, 201, 202, 211, 220, 302, 452 and 506 R/w 34 and 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(b) and 30 of Indian Arms Act. Since both petitions arising out of same crime, they are disposed off by this common order. 2. Factual matrix of the petition are as under: It is evident from the complaint that after getting credible information that one Dharmaraj Chadachan is in possession of country made pistol i.e., firearms and he is making use of those firearms for the purpose of committing the crimes, the police party went to his village on 30.10.2017 in the morning hours and conducted a raid. At that point of time, the said Dharmaraj Chadachan was attempted to do away with the life of the Sub-Inspector of Police of Chadachan Police Station, who was heading the raiding party, by firing at him with a countrymade pistol, causing serious injury. The said Dharmaraj Chadachan also opened fire at an informant, who was a member of the raiding party. Not only to save his life but also the lives of the other members of the raiding party, the P.S.I opened fire at Dharmaraj Chadachan. Due to which, Dharmaraj Cha-dachan was hit by a bullet and sustained an injury. The injured Dharmaraj Chadachan came to be taken in an Ambulance to the Government Hospital at Chadachan for treatment of the bullet injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, for better treatment, he has been shifted to B.L.D.E. Hospital at Vijayapura, where he was declared as brought dead. Subsequently, a complaint came to be filed by Anil Doddamani, a police Constable attached to Chadachan Police Station, who is also a member of the raiding party. Based upon the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 171/2017 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the Investigation of the case came to be taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura. Based upon the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 171/2017 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the Investigation of the case came to be taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of not only certain private persons, who are said to be the witnesses to what all that had transpired on the morning of 30.10.2017, but also the member of the raiding party, most of whom were police personnel, apart from the informants who had gone along with them. While the investigation is in progress, pursuant to the directions issued by the District Magistrate, Vijayapura, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate conducted an enquiry in relation to the death of Dharmaraj Chadachan in the shoot-out incident. During the course of the enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded not only the statements of several witnesses including the statements of 19 police personnel who were aware of the things and whose names had figured in the police investigation as the one who would throw light into the matter, collected and examined certain vital and important documents and thereafter submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Bijapur on 31.01.2018. In the report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has stated that there was absolutely no motive whatsoever for the P.S.I to have shot at the deceased and that the P.S.I. shot at the deceased as self defence to protect his life. It is further transpires that on 11.07.2018, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura, who was investigating into the case in Crime No. 171/2017, by then, had almost completed the investigation and for the reasons best known to him and which are inexplicable, submitted a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate with a request to record that the six persons named by him in the report among others have a role to play in the death of Dharmaraj Chadachan and that he is continuing with the investigation of the crime for the offences that are made penal under Sections 120-B, 193, 195-A, 203 and 302 of IPC against the six persons named in his report instead of offences under Sections 353, 333, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC for which offences, the crime had been originally registered against Dharmaraj Chadachan on the basis of the complaint of Anil. Subsequently, the investigation has been transferred to the C.I.D., Bangalore for further investigation. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. took over the investigation and recorded the statements of several witnesses, whose statements had already been recorded by the earlier investigator. Thereafter, a final report has been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 166, 177, 182, 191, 192, 193, 195, 195(A), 199, 201, 202, 211, 220, 302, 452 and 506 r/w Sections 34 and 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(b) and 30 of the Indian Arms Act. In the final report filed by him, the Investigating Officer has lugged the petitioners also as accused in the case on the premise that they have also played role in the death of Dharmaraj Chadachan. The final report filed by the Investigating Officer has been received by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Indi in C.C.No.1375/2018 and the matter is pending consideration by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Indi under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. for committing the case to the Trial Court, where the accused are requires to be facing of a trial. 3. I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. C.V. Nagesh appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the materials available on record. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has contended that there is no direct overt-act attributed against these petitioners in committing the alleged offence as narrated in enquiry made by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate relating to the case in Crime No. 171/2017. Subsequent to submitting of report by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the investigation has been transferred to the C.I.D., Bangalore for further investigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. took over the investigation and has recorded the statement of several witnesses, whose statements had already been recorded by the earlier investigator. But, the statements of these witnesses as recorded by the investigator attached to the C.I.D., Bangalore is nothing but the topsy-turvy of their statements from the one recorded earlier and at a point of time when the investigation was in the hands of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura. 5. But, the statements of these witnesses as recorded by the investigator attached to the C.I.D., Bangalore is nothing but the topsy-turvy of their statements from the one recorded earlier and at a point of time when the investigation was in the hands of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura. 5. It is further contended that the evidence said to have been collected by the Investigating Officer subsequent to the transfer of the investigation of the case to the C.I.D. Bangalore, in no way would incriminate the petitioners with regard to the alleged homicidal death of Dharmaraj Chadachan. In fact, the witnesses who are examined as the one who were present over the scene of offence, do not even remotely indicate the presence of the petitioners at the scene of offence at any point of time in their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer at the earliest point of time. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer do not even remotely suggest that the petitioners had any motive whatsoever to do away with the life of Dharmaraj Chadachan. Certain police personnel are the members of the raiding party and their statements are brought on record in the case as evidence to connect the petitioners with the offence in question, the same has to be established by the prosecution during the course of trial, where the charge sheet has been laid against the accused. But, in their statements recorded at the earliest point of time by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura, who in fact was the investigator of the case, do not whisper anything about the petitioners in relation to the offence in question. Their topsy-turvy statements said to have been recorded by the investigator attached to C.I.D., Bangalore also do not indicate the complicity of the petitioners in connection with the offences complained against them in the case. 6. It is further contended that the petitioners are in judicial custody since from the date of their arrest. There is no overt act attributed against these petitioners and no specific material has been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, even though charge sheet is filed by the C.I.D., Bangalore relating to the motive of the accused in eliminating the deceased Dharmaraj Chadachan in Crime No. 171/2017. There is no overt act attributed against these petitioners and no specific material has been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, even though charge sheet is filed by the C.I.D., Bangalore relating to the motive of the accused in eliminating the deceased Dharmaraj Chadachan in Crime No. 171/2017. Moreover, the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail to them. On these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays for enlarging the petitioners on bail. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has taken me through the contents made in the complaint and submits that initially the FIR has been registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 333, 353, 504, 506 of IPC, beside Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. But, subsequently, the charge sheet has been laid against the accused in C.C.No.1375/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 166, 177, 182, 191, 192, 193, 195, 195(A), 199, 201, 202, 211, 220, 302, 452 and 506 R/w Sections 34 and 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(b) and 30 of the Indian Arms Act. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Basaravaju Bin Ambigere on 14.08.2018, wherein he has stated that in the month of October, 2017 in the last week one day at around 8 to 9 p.m., in front of the newly constructed house of one Mahadev Sahukar, the said Mahadev Sahukar, P.S.I. Gopal Hallur and C.P.I M.B. Asode were sitting on chair and discussing some matters; along with them Bheemanagouda Devaranim-baragi, Hanmanth Pujari, the son-in-law of Mahadev Sahukar namely, Sidda-gondappa Moodavi alias Shivagondappa Moodavi, Siddagondappa Tikkundi alias Marthand, Bheemashankar Pujari, Chand Chadachan, Shivanand Biradar and Satyagouda were sitting on the ground. At that time, the said Basavaraju along with another labour namely, Budde had brought tea and also facilitated the same to them. Thereafter, Mahadev Sahukar asked the Basavaraju and Budde not to present there and to go away from that place. This statement is recorded by Investigating Officer on 14.08.2018, after lapse of considerable period. At that time, the said Basavaraju along with another labour namely, Budde had brought tea and also facilitated the same to them. Thereafter, Mahadev Sahukar asked the Basavaraju and Budde not to present there and to go away from that place. This statement is recorded by Investigating Officer on 14.08.2018, after lapse of considerable period. But, the deceased Dharmaraj Chadachan said to have been eliminated by a team headed by PSI of Chadachan Police Station and shot at him on the ground that he attempted to do away with the life of the P.S.I of Chadachan Police Station and has also opened fire at an informant, who was a member of the raiding team. Therefore, as a measure of self defence, the P.S.I has shot at the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained bullet injury. Immediately, he shifted to Government Hospital at Chadachan for treatment and thereafter, he has been shifted to B.L.D.E. Hospital at Vijayapura for better treatment, where he was declared as brought dead. This has been find place in the records. In the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, CWs.52 to 57 have stated regarding the offence in Crime No. 171/2017, wherein the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet in C.C.No.1375/2018 before the committal Court. The accused are required for facing of a trial. Therefore, at this stage, if the petitioners are released on bail, they would certainly come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. However, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that there shall be some self infliction of injuries over the person of the deceased, the same has to be established by the prosecution during the course of the trial, it cannot be said at this stage whether it is self inflicted injuries or any injuries over the person of the deceased is due to shoot out by the P.S.I. and his other staff members. These are all the contentions taken by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, seeking for dismissal of the bail petition. 8. These are all the contentions taken by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, seeking for dismissal of the bail petition. 8. Having regard to the strenuous contentions taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State are concerned, it is relevant to state that, after getting credible information that Dharmaraj Chadachan is in possession of countrymade pistol i.e., firearms and he has been making use of those firearms for the purpose of committing the crimes, the police party went to his village on 30.10.2017 in the morning hours and conducted raid. At that point of time, the said Dharmaraj attempted to do away with the life of PSI of Chadachan Police Station who was heading the raiding party by firing at him with a countrymade pistol causing serious injuries. The said Dharmaraj fired at an informant who was a member of the raiding party. The PSI to save his life and lives of others, fired at Dharmaraj. Due to which, Dharamaraj was hit by a bullet and sustained injuries. The injured Dharmaraj was taken to the hospital. In the said raid, PSI and other police officials also sustained bullet injuries and they took treatment in Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru as inpatients. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayapur was investigating the case. The statements recorded by the Investigating Officer are in topsy-turvy manner. Thereafter, enquiry was held by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the rank of Assistant Commissioner as per the direction issued by the Deputy Commission being the District Magistrate with regard shoot-out incident of Dharmaraj Chadachan. After enquiry, submitted report before the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the matter has been transferred to the C.I.D., Bengaluru for investigation. After recording the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, C.I.D., Bengaluru laid the charge sheet in C.C.No.1375/2018. After enquiry, submitted report before the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the matter has been transferred to the C.I.D., Bengaluru for investigation. After recording the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, C.I.D., Bengaluru laid the charge sheet in C.C.No.1375/2018. It is relevant to express that the first information report was registered only for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 333, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC besides Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, but the charge sheet is laid against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 166, 177, 182, 191, 192, 193, 195, 195(A), 199, 201, 202, 211, 220, 302, 452 and 506 r/w Sections 34 and 149 of IPC besides Sections 25(1)(b) and 30 of the Indian Arms Act in C.C.No.1375/2018 arising out of Crime No. 171/2017. Therefore, it is said that, at this stage, it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioners. The material secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation are enough materials to lay the charge sheet but the said materials are not enough to decline the relief of bail sought by the petitioners. It is also relevant to state that accused Nos. 4 and 15 have already been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 200350/2019 dated 02.04.2019 on certain conditions stipulated therein. The petitioners herein also stand on the same footing as that of the accused who are already released on bail. Therefore, there are substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking relief of bail. However, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor emphatically submits that if the petitioners are supposed to be released on bail, certainly, they would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. The said apprehension could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. 9. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, as well as under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/accused Nos. 9, 5 and 1 respectively are deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : - ORDER The bail petitions filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 9, 5 and 1 respectively under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., are hereby allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 9, 5 and 1 respectively are deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : - ORDER The bail petitions filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 9, 5 and 1 respectively under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., are hereby allowed subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 9, 5 and 1 respectively shall execute personal bonds in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court where the case in C.C.No.1375/2018 (arising out of Crime No. 171/2017) of Chadachan Police Station is pending; 2. The petitioners shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses. 3. The petitioners shall appear before the Court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail; 4. The petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth; 5. The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month in the first week of Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the concerned S.H.O. pending disposal of the entire case; 6. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Vijayapur District without prior permission from the competent Court of law. If the petitioners violate any of these conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased. Order accordingly.