JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri.Syed Muzakkir ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.K.Rahul Rai, High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. The present petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: 'Wherefore, the petitioner (accused No.3) most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.9/2022 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bangalore City, for the offences under Sections 395 of IPC, which is pending on the file of Hon'ble XXX additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, on such terms and conditions in the ends of justice'. 3. Brief facts of the case is as under: The complaint came to be lodged by one Umar Hayath Khan son of late Khadar Khan whereby Kumarswamy Layout Police station registered a case in Crime No.9/2022 on 14.01.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') against two unknown person at the inception. In the complaint it is contended that the complainant is a resident of house bearing No.224, Yalachenahalli, Bangalore-560 078 since last 15 years. He retired from Indian aluminium Company in the year 1993. all his children are residing in foreign countries. On 12.04.2021 he lost his wife and thereafter he is living all alone in the house. When the matter stood, on 13.01.2022 at about 9 a.m., two unknown persons visited his house in the guise of taking a house for rent, he has informed that they should come next day. at that juncture, they wanted to see the house itself and that they showed a weapon and his hands were tied and thereafter they went inside the house and robbed 4 necklaces, 4 finger rings, 4 pair of ear rings, a chain and also pair of silver ear ring and cash of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) and Samsung mobile phone. During the conversation it has come to their knowledge that the name of one person was Kiran. Thereafter, police investigated the matter, interalia arrested the present petitioner who arraigned him as accused No.3 in the incident. 4. The robbed gold ornaments were seized from the custody of accused Nos.1 and 2. However, based on the voluntary statement given by the present petitioner a chain measuring 14.20 grams and one finger ring as been seized by the police. 5. 4. The robbed gold ornaments were seized from the custody of accused Nos.1 and 2. However, based on the voluntary statement given by the present petitioner a chain measuring 14.20 grams and one finger ring as been seized by the police. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner approached the District Court for grant of bail in criminal miscellaneous No.1630/2022. Learned District judge by order dated 18.02.2022 rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the bail grounds contended that charge sheet is filed and the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and therefore, sought for grant of bail. He further contended that the robbed gold ornaments were seized from the custody of accused Nos.1 and 2 and the chain and ring seized from the present accused is personal ornament and therefore it is nothing to do with the present accused as it is his personal gold ornaments and hence sought for grant of regular bail. 7. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition on the ground that all the seized gold ornaments, at this stage would definitely go against the petitioner in obtaining an order of grant of bail. 8. Perused the material on record. admittedly, the gold ornaments which were robbed from the house of the complainant is seized from the custody of accused Nos.1 and 2. When such being position what is value to be attached to the seized gold chain and finger ring is to be considered only during the trial. 9. Suffice to say, at this stage this Court cannot hold a mini trial, as the findings would prejudice the trial in one way or the other. Having regard to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents in so far as present petitioner is concerned and his name being not even shown in FIR and initially FIR was against only two persons. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution could be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER 1. The Criminal Petition is allowed. 2. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution could be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER 1. The Criminal Petition is allowed. 2. Petitioner-accused No.3 shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 3. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly hamper the investigation process and tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 4. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once in fortnight Sunday between 10.00 a.m and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed. 5. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly. 6. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore without prior permission 7. Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences. Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. Ordered accordingly.