ORDER : 1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.146/2023 pending before the Court of XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.284/2022 registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 397, 394, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC seeking regular bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.284/2022 was registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences against unknown persons, based on the first information dated 16.09.2022 received from Sam s/o Biju. 4. During the course of investigation of the case, petitioners herein were arrested on 28.09.2022 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by the petitioners before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected and therefore, petitioners had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.11621/2022 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.02.2023. Thereafter, accused No.1 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.12108/2023 which was dismissed on merits by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.02.2024, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file similar petition before the trial Court, after examination of material witnesses i.e., CW.1 and CWs.3 to 6 is completed before the trial Court. Thereafter, petitioner had filed bail application before the trial Court in S.C.No.146/2023 which was rejected on 25.03.2025. Therefore, petitioners are before this Court in this successive bail application. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are in custody in the present case for the last nearly two years and nine months. Out of the 16 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, only 1 charge sheet witness has been examined as PW.1 till date. In the other criminal case registered against the petitioners, they have been granted bail. Petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate before the trial Court for the purpose of trial and abide by the conditions that may be imposed on them. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. She submits that CW.1 is abroad and CWs.3 to 5 could not be secured and therefore, the trial Court has already dropped them. 7. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. She submits that CW.1 is abroad and CWs.3 to 5 could not be secured and therefore, the trial Court has already dropped them. 7. FIR in the present case was registered against unknown persons. Petitioners herein were arrested on 28.09.2022 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. They are in custody for the last nearly two years and nine months. Undisputedly, in the earlier criminal case registered against them, they have been granted bail. Crl.P.No.12108/2023 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to accused No.1 to renew his bail application before the trial Court after examination of the material charge sheet witnesses namely CW.1 and CWs.3 to 6 is completed before the trial Court. 8. Order sheet of the trial Court produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would go to show that CW.2 was examined as PW.1 completely on 23.10.2024. Thereafter, inspite of repeated steps being taken to secure the presence of CW.1 and CWs.3 to 6, their presence could not be secured and even proclamation orders were issued against them. 9. Learned HCGP has submitted that CW.1 is abroad, so he could not be produced before the trial Court. As against CWs.3 to 5 though coercive steps were taken, their presence could not be secured before the trial Court and therefore by order dated 23.05.2025, trial Court has dropped the said witnesses. Out of the 16 charge sheet witnesses, prosecution has examined only 1 charge sheet witness as on date. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: "19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." 11. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." 11. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, the prayer made by the petitioners for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Considering the period of their incarceration. Accordingly, the following: ORDER : The petition is allowed Petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.146/2023 pending before the Court of XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.284/2022 registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 397, 394, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; b) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Station House Officer, Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru on every 3 rd Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., for the period of one year from today; b) The petitioners shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts their appearance for valid reasons; c) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; d) The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future; e) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against them is disposed off.