JUDGMENT 1. The Crl.P.No.8677/2022 is filed by the petitioner accused No.1 and the Crl.P.No.8699/2022 is filed by accused No.2 under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C for granting bail in S.C.No.80/2022 pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in pursuant to the Crime No.238/2021 registered by the Ramanagara Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 327, 302, 323, 325, 364, 427, 342, read with 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of one Smt.Madhu P., wife of one deceased Ranjith who filed complaint to the police on 30/10/2021 alleging that her husband along with relative CW1 namely Satish went out in a Brezza Car to attend a function. Thereafter, she came to know that her husband was kidnapped by one Devraj and others, later she herself along with her brothers went there and found her husband was dead. After registering the case, the police arrested the petitioners on 2/11/2021 and were remanded to judicial custody. Their bail petition came to be rejected by Sessions Judge, hence they are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offence and have been falsely implicated. There is no eye witnesses to the incident for having committed the murder of the deceased, except there was quarrel between deceased and the accused persons said to be seen while abducting the deceased. Absolutely there is no eye witnesses to the incident except circumstantial evidence and there is no previous intention or motive to commit the murder of the deceased, but on the day of incident there was quarrel between deceased and one Devraj. In the said quarrel the deceased assaulted Devraj with knife and caused grievous injury and information given to this accused. On that background this accused said to be relatives of Devraj abducted the deceased Ranjith and said to have assaulted. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The accused are in custody for more than 10 months. Some of the accused persons were granted anticipatory bail, hence prayed for granting bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended the accused No.1 is suffering from heart ailments and he is taking treatment from Ramakrishna Hospital. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The accused are in custody for more than 10 months. Some of the accused persons were granted anticipatory bail, hence prayed for granting bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended the accused No.1 is suffering from heart ailments and he is taking treatment from Ramakrishna Hospital. If no proper treatment is provided, it is very difficult for his survival and his age is also above 60 years and hence prayed for grating bail on the medical grounds. He also produced some medical documents in support of his argument. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that there is no specific averments or allegations made against accused No.2, except the voluntary statement. There is no bad antecedents against this petitioner. The petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed for granting bail. 7. Per contra learned HCPG objected for granting of the bail and contended that the bail applications of accused No.3 and accused No.4 were rejected by this Court and if they are released on bail then they shall commit similar offence and abscond from the case is not ruled out. Hence prayed for rejecting the bail petition. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the records, of course, on perusal of the records which reveals that the deceased Ranjith said to have attended a function in the village, where there was a quarrel between the deceased and one Devraj accused No.7. During that quarrel the deceased said to have assaulted accused No.7 with deadly weapons, by taking out knife and stabbed on accused No.7. Due to this incident the accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 said to have assaulted by deceased, then they abducted him in a Car and they said to have dumped stone on his head and caused the murder. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the actual incident occurred and dumping of stones, except the voluntary statement. Accused No.1 is said to have dumped the stone along with the accused No.2. This part of fact was stated by the accused in their voluntary statement. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the actual incident occurred and dumping of stones, except the voluntary statement. Accused No.1 is said to have dumped the stone along with the accused No.2. This part of fact was stated by the accused in their voluntary statement. Of course this court rejected the bail petition of accused Nos.3 and 4 but the fact remains the accused persons had abducted the deceased and the deceased stabbed accused No.7 and they questioned the deceased who sent him for assaulting accused No.7, during that quarrel they assaulted deceased Ranjith and done to death. The investigation is completed long back, charge sheet has been filed, they are in custody for more than 10 months. Accused No.1 said to be a heart patient, the medical report produced herein shows he is taking treatment prior to his arrest and he is required for the treatment. Therefore, if proper treatment is not provided for accused No.1, it is very difficult for him to take trial and the it may not be possible at jail hospital authority to provide proper treatment sending him to higher hospital by spending money from the State Exchequer. Therefore accused No.1 is permitted to take the treatment of his own choice at any Super specialty hospital at Bangalore or any other place, at his own cost. Therefore, accused No.1 is entitled for bail on the medical ground. As regards to accused No.2, he is also standing on same footing he also said to have assaulted deceased with stone. However, eye witnesses are speaking only about the abduction of the deceased by the accused and there is no eye witnesses to the actual commission of murder except the voluntary statement made by them before the police which is not admissible, except recovery under Sec. 27 of evidence Act. Therefore, keeping accused in custody will not serve any purpose except for his presence for the trial. The apprehension of the prosecution may be safe guarded by imposing certain stringent conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would cause to the prosecution case. Hence the following order; ORDER Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.238/2021 registered by the Ramanagara Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. Hence the following order; ORDER Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.238/2021 registered by the Ramanagara Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 327, 302, 323, 325, 364, 427, 342, read with 34 of IPC pending in S.C.No.80/2022 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court; (ii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences strictly; (iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly; (iv) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court especially accused No.1 in case of any treatment outside the jurisdiction; and (v) Petitioners shall take up the trial without causing any further delay.