JUDGMENT N K Sudhindrarao, J. - This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Syed Muzakkir Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent are present. 3. The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioners seek grant of bail in Crime No.32/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 12(B) of Passport Act, 1967 of the respondent-Kothanur Police Station. 4. Previously, the petitioners had made application before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in C.Crl.Misc.49/2020 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., that came to be dismissed on 8.5.2020. 5. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent. 6. It is stated that the petitioners committed theft in the house of one Chandrika who is the sister of the complainant situated at Bachappa Layout, Sevanagar, Bengaluru, by breaking open the door lock between 12.00 noon to 1.00 pm., and later Kothanur police have arrested the petitioners on suspicion and registered the case. 7. The substance of the complaint as could be seen from the FIR is that: 8. A criminal case was registered in crime No.32/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380 of IPC on the strength of the complaint of one Sundaran dated 27.2.2020. The accused persons are stated to be unknown in the FIR. Insofar as other facts related to the incident are that on 27.2.2020, Chandrika who is the sister of the complainant received a phone call from her neighbor Syed Khan stating that some miscreants have broke open the door lock of her house and she in turn informed the same to her brother/complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to the house of his sister and found that the door lock was broken by unknown miscreants. All the articles in the room were scattered and the complainant had no definite information of the articles stolen as his sister was in Kerala. He makes a mention that the details of the stolen articles would be furnished, the moment his sister comes back. On these facts a criminal case came to be registered. 9. All the articles in the room were scattered and the complainant had no definite information of the articles stolen as his sister was in Kerala. He makes a mention that the details of the stolen articles would be furnished, the moment his sister comes back. On these facts a criminal case came to be registered. 9. Learned Senior counsel Sri Hasmath Pasha for Sri Syed Muzakkir Ahmed, for petitioners would submit that the petitioners were arrested by respondent-police on 17.03.2020, the bail application moved before the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected on 8.5.2020. As a result, the petitioners are still in custody. He would further submit that there is no invoking of offence under section 12(B) of Passport Act 1967. 10. The said submission is made, as the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 8.5.2020, while observing the nature of offences against the accused persons has mentioned Section 12(B) of Passport Act. On perusal, it is seen that such offence is invoked, without noticing the actual provisions. 11. He would further submit that there were no grounds to believe the commission of alleged offence by the petitioners and being the citizens of Columbia, petitioner Nos.1 and 3 have come to India under medical visa and petitioner No.2 has come to India under Student Visa. He would also submit that petitioners were arrested on 17.03.2020 and were remanded to judicial custody on 18.03.2020. Learned Senior counsel would submit that judicial custody of the petitioners till date extends for a period of 90 days from the date of remand and 91 days from the date of arrest. Hence, he seeks for enlarging of the petitioners. 12. Learned HCGP Sri K.Nageshwarappa would submit that absolutely there are no materials to release the accused persons on bail. They have committed heinous offence and they have no regard for law. It is also submitted that the petitioners are involved in other criminal cases which are registered in crime Nos.154/2019, 2/2020, 33/2020 and 37/2020 for similar offences. Thus, he has objected the bail applications. He further submits that if once the petitioners are released, they would not come back to the court and there is every likelihood that they would commit similar or other offences. 13. Thus, he has objected the bail applications. He further submits that if once the petitioners are released, they would not come back to the court and there is every likelihood that they would commit similar or other offences. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are stated to be the natives of Columbia and the second petitioner came to India under student visa and first and third petitioners came to India on medical visa. Further learned Sessions Judge in the interdictory mentioning has observed registering a criminal case under Section 12(B) of Passport Act along with the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380, 368, 371, 420 r/w section 34 of IPC. As per the calculations submitted by the learned senior counsel, the period of judicial custody from the date of arrest i.e., 17.03.2020 comes to 91 days and from the date of remand i.e., 18.03.2020, it comes to 90 days. The benefit of release of bail as provided under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. also was submitted. Even considering the offences punishable under Section 457 of IPC, learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail application on 8.5.2020. The addresses of the petitioners are stated as under: Petitioner No.1: R/at. Flat No.203 Manyata Estates Apartment No.137, Near BBMP Office Thanisandra S.R.K.Nagar Post Bangalore 560 045 Permanent Address: Kalve 27, 31 A 17 Sur Boogata, Columbia Petitioner No.2: R/at No.29/2A, I Main 4th Cross, Chamundeshwari Layout Vidyaranyapura Bangalore 560097 Permanent Address: Kalve 80, No.28-98 Florest, Boogala Columbia Petitioner No.3: R/at. Flat No.203 Manyata Estates Apartment No.137, Near BBMP Office Thanisandra S.R.K. Nagar Post Bangalore 560 045 Permanent Address: Kalve 8-72, Bario Las Cruses Boogata, Columbia 14. The petitioners are residence of a foreign country and they were arrested on 17.03.2020. Till today they are in judicial custody by virtue of the order dated 8.5.2020 on rejection of their bail application by learned Sessions Judge. Another objection of the prosecution is that there are three other criminal cases pending against the accused persons for the similar offences. 15. In the overall context and circumstances of the case, it has to be considered that all the offences invoked against the accused persons are triable by the Magistrate of First Class. 16. The petitioners are foreign nationals and are also accused persons in other three criminal cases. 15. In the overall context and circumstances of the case, it has to be considered that all the offences invoked against the accused persons are triable by the Magistrate of First Class. 16. The petitioners are foreign nationals and are also accused persons in other three criminal cases. Having said that the judicial custody of the petitioners comes upto 91 days from the date of arrest and 90 days from the date of remand, insofar as bail application is concerned, it is not filed under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., on the isolated ground that it is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Regard being had to the fact that the period of custody has crossed 90 days and I have also considered the restless situation in the society because of pandemic Covid-19 and further complications of gathering. 17. In the overall context and circumstances of the case and in view of the existing situation, I am of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the ends of justice, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution would be resolved by imposing suitable conditions. 18. Accordingly, the petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed and all the petitioners are enlarged on bail in Cr.No.32/2020 registered against them by respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380, 468, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 12(B) of Passport Act, 1967, subject to the following conditions. i) Each of the petitioners-accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety of a person possessing immovable properties for the likesum. At this stage learned Senior counsel Sri Hasmath Pasha, appearing for petitioners submit that because of non-acquaintance with the people, the petitioners may be permitted to offer cash as surety in lieu of surety. In the circumstances, they are permitted. ii) The petitioners-accused shall not terrorize the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioners-accused shall mark their attendance before the respondent-Police of the above case on every second and forth Saturday between 9.00 p.m. to 10 p.m. until further orders. iv) They shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court pending disposals of these cases. They shall surrender the passport and other travel documents to the respondent-Police. iii) The petitioners-accused shall mark their attendance before the respondent-Police of the above case on every second and forth Saturday between 9.00 p.m. to 10 p.m. until further orders. iv) They shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court pending disposals of these cases. They shall surrender the passport and other travel documents to the respondent-Police. At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that passport and visa of the petitioners are already impounded. The said submission is recorded. v) The passport of the petitioners be surrendered before the trial court by making necessary endorsement. vi) In view of current situation, the petitioners are immediately upon release shall undergo home quarantine for a period of 14 days to prevent medical complications.