JUDGMENT : G.BASAVARAJA, J. 1. Accused No.1-Chandrappa who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1609 of 2025, has preferred appeal against the order dated 09 th October 2024; and the appellant/accused No.2-Srinivas, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1603 of 2025 against the order dated 21 st September 2024, both passed in Special SC No.12 of 2024 by the II Additional District &Sessions Judge, Kolar (for short "the trial Court"). 2. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned Counsel appearing for appellants would submit that there are no materials to attract the commission of offence against these accused. He would submit that this Court has granted bail to accused 3 to 9 and to accused 11 to 16. Learned Counsel would submit that there is a delay in filing the complaint and in submitting First Information Report to the Court. There are no eye-witnesses except CW10 and that there is abnormal delay in recording the statement of witnesses. Investigating officer has not recovered any material at the instance of these accused. There is no consistency in the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer. Prosecution papers reveal that four incidents took place at different places on the same day.However, investigating officer drawn four common mahazars. CW10 who is an alleged eye-witness is a rowdy-sheeter and the deceased-Ambarisha is also a rowdy-sheeter and 23 cases were registered against him in various crime numbers and in various Police stations. In this regard, he has produced the list of cases instituted against deceased Ambarisha. Further, the learned Counsel would submit that the trial Court has not considered the material inconsistency and contradictions in the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses. Since the other accused are already on bail as per the order of this Court, the appellants who are accused 1 and 2 are also entitled for bail on the principle of parity. Accused are in judicial custody for more than one and half years. Charge-sheet is also submitted by the investigating officer. Present accused not required for any further investigation. Accused are ready to abide to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On all these grounds, he sought to allow these appeals. Accused are in judicial custody for more than one and half years. Charge-sheet is also submitted by the investigating officer. Present accused not required for any further investigation. Accused are ready to abide to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. On all these grounds, he sought to allow these appeals. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also produced the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.744 of 2025 decided on 17 th June, 2025 granting bail to Accused 7 and 8; Order passed in Criminal Appeal No.2329 of 2024 decided on 16 th January, 2025 granting bail to accused 11, 13 and 15; order passed in Criminal Appeals No.1804, 1904 and 1946 of 2024 decided on 20 th November, 2024 whereby Criminal Appeals No.1805 of 2024 and 1904 of 2024 came to be allowed granting bail to accused 16 and 14; Order passed in Criminal Appeals No.882 of 2025 and 1214 of 2025 decided on 14 th July, 2025 granting bail to Accused 4 and 5. 3. As against this, Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in both the appeals, would submit that there are sufficient prima facie material against these accused for having committed alleged offences. There are nine eye-witnesses in these cases. The principle of parity is not applicable to the case on hand, as the accusation made against these accused are very serious in nature. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that accused No.1-Chandrappa has assaulted the deceased with chopper on his head and accused No.2-Srinivas has fisted on the eye of the deceased. The offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are no grounds to allow these appeals. The trial Court has properly appreciated the material and record in accordance with law and facts and has passed the Orders, which do not call for interference in these appeals. On all these grounds, it was sought for dismissal of appeals. 4. Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, also addressed similar arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. On all these grounds, it was sought for dismissal of appeals. 4. Sri M.R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, also addressed similar arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. He would further submit that accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in SC No.124 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar dated 12 th June, 2012 and has also produced the copy of the order. 5. By way of reply, learned counsel appearing for accused No.2-Srinivas would submit that the Supreme Court has reduced the sentence and released the accused as per the order passed in SLA (Crl.) No.3812 of 2018 decided on 07 th May, 2018 and he has also produced the copy of the order. Having heard the arguments on both sides, following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the appellants have made out a ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court? 2. What order? Regarding Point No.1: 6. I examined the materials placed before this Court.Vemagal Police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 16 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)and 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 7. Column No.17 of the charge-sheet it is stated as under: 8. The Investigating Officer has examined CW2 Muniraj, CW3 Gowramma, CW4 Lavanya.M, who are the eye witnesses to this incident. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of injured Praveena S/o Ramappa. The police have seized the weapons and conducted spot panchanama and seizure panchanama regarding the weapons used for the commission of offence. The P.M. Report of the deceased Ambareesh S/o Venkataramanappa, aged 38 years, reveals that death is due to hemorrhage and Coma as a result of injuries sustained to head and limbs. The wound certificate of the injured is also produced. 9. On perusal of these materials, at this stage, it appears that there are prima-facie materials to attract the alleged commission of offences against the present appellants who are accused Nos.1 and 2. The alleged commission of offences are heinous in nature, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The wound certificate of the injured is also produced. 9. On perusal of these materials, at this stage, it appears that there are prima-facie materials to attract the alleged commission of offences against the present appellants who are accused Nos.1 and 2. The alleged commission of offences are heinous in nature, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this stage, if the accused are released on bail, that there are every possibilities of tampering/threatening the prosecution witnesses and also it will affect the society at large. 10. Considering the nature and gravity of offences, antecedents of the accused, I am of the considered opinion that it is not just and proper to release the appellants on bail. The trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and rightly rejected the bail application filed by these appellants. I do not find any error/illegality/infirmities in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. I have also gone through the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.744 of 2025 decided on 17 th June, 2025 granting bail to Accused 7 and 8; Order passed in Criminal Appeal No.2329 of 2024 decided on 16 th January, 2025 granting bail to accused 11, 13 and 15; order passed in Criminal Appeals No.1804, 1904 and 1946 of 2024 decided on 20 th November, 2024 whereby Criminal Appeals No.1805 of 2024 and 1904 of 2024 came to be allowed granting bail to accused 16 and 14; Order passed in Criminal Appeals No.882 of 2025 and 1214 of 2025 decided on 14 th July, 2025 granting bail to Accused 4 and 5. The release of the accused in the said cases is not a valid ground to release the present accused on bail for the aforesaid reasons. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in Negative 11. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant counsel may be considered only after full-fledged trial. At this stage, it is not appropriate to express any opinion as to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. Regarding Point No.2: 12. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER Appeals are dismissed.