ORDER : Crl.P.No.218/2022 filed by accused No.3, Crl.P.No.105/2022 filed by accused No.4 and Crl.P.No.223/2022 filed by accused Nos.6 and 7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Cr.No.141/2021 registered by the Sathnoor Police, Kanakapura Circle for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and Sections 286 and 304 of IPC, pending on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kanakapura, now before the Sessions Court. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that a suo-moto complaint was registered by Sri. Ravi Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Sathnoor Police Station on 16.08.2021 alleging that about 3.39 pm, he received the information stating that on the mud road near Maralegavi Mutt, a car is said to have exploded and the person inside the car was dead. Immediately, he went to the spot and noticed that the car was completely damaged, cut into pieces and the dead body also cut into pieces and found near the bush. During the investigation, the Police arrested accused Nos.3 and 4 on 17.08.2021 and accused Nos.6 and 7 on 20.08.2021 and remanded them to judicial custody. The bail petition came to be rejected by this Court on 12.11.2021 and now the petitioners again approached this Court by way of successive bail petition with additional grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contended that there is no evidence against the petitioners for having supplied the explosive material to accused No.1 and seizure of the articles from the shop of accused Nos.6 and 7 is not an explosive substance, it is only an instrument. The accused No.5 is the license holder and the accused No.4 is the son of accused No.5. Accused No.2 is a broker. Absolutely, there is no material to show that the petitioners/accused have supplied the explosive material. Even as per the statement of CWs.14 to 16, the accused have never used any explosives for breaking the stone which was taken by the accused persons for blasting the rock. The investigation is completed, charge sheet has been filed after the order passed by this Court in the earlier occasion. Their presence is not required. Hence, prayed to release them on bail. 5. The investigation is completed, charge sheet has been filed after the order passed by this Court in the earlier occasion. Their presence is not required. Hence, prayed to release them on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the petitions. 6. On hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is clear that this Court has rejected the bail petition during the crime stage, where the charge sheet was not yet filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel on the same day of the passing the order by this Court, a charge sheet came to be filed by the Police after completion of the investigation. The statement of CWs.14 to 16 does not reveal that substance was supplied by the petitioners, which were used by the other accused for blasting the rock. The accused No.5 is said to be a license holder and the license is also produced by the learned counsel. Accused No.5 has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Accused No.4 is the son of accused No.5. At this stage, it cannot be said that deceased accused No.1 purchased the material from the shop of accused Nos.4 and 5. Accused Nos.6 and 7 who are the coolie workers for construction of road said to be alleged to have been purchased the explosive substance through accused No.1. Accused No.1 has already died in the blast. Such being the case, without expressing any opinion in the case, by imposing certain conditions, the bail is granted no prejudice would cause it to the prosecution case. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The petitions are allowed. The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 on bail in S.C.No.5031/2021 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (Sitting at Kanakapura) subject to following conditions: i. The petitioners shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; ii. Petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offences; iii. Petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; iv. The petitioner shall take trial without causing any delay.