ORDER : SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J. 1. This petition is filed by accused No. 11 under Section 439 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C. No. 1416/2021 (crime No. 156/2021 of Koramangala Police Station) registered for offence punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 307, 302, 35, 37 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(1-B), 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 pending on the file of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned SPP II for respondent – State. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that earlier petitioner had filed petitions seeking bail and they have been rejected. The accusation against the petitioner is that he intimated the movement of the deceased to the other accused who killed the deceased. Petitioner was not on the spot at the time of incident. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were present at the spot have been granted bail on the ground that they were not holding any weapons at the time of alleged offence. Eye witnesses, namely, C.W.1 to C.W.3, C.W.18, C.W.19, C.W.20 have been examined. In the charge sheet totally 111 witnesses are cited and out of them some witnesses are examined and remaining 80 more witnesses are to be examined. Prosecution is dragging on the trial. Petitioner is in custody since more than 4-½ years and there is delay in completing the trial. Petitioner has not contributed for the delay in trial. Accused No. 10 was the main accused and he has been granted bail on the ground that he was in judicial custody at the time of incident even though he had conspired to kill the deceased. Earlier there was a direction by this Court to conduct the trial on day-to-day basis as per order dated 30.10.2024 and subsequently it has been relaxed on 02.06.2025. Prosecution is not keeping the witnesses present on the date of trial and dragging on the trial. Prosecution is not serious in concluding the trial. Earlier petitioner had sought bail on the ground of parity as accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were similarly placed to that of this petitioner had been granted bail, but, said ground of parity was not considered. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition. 4. Prosecution is not serious in concluding the trial. Earlier petitioner had sought bail on the ground of parity as accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were similarly placed to that of this petitioner had been granted bail, but, said ground of parity was not considered. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned SPP II would contend that the petitioner has suppressed that he had filed another petition in Crl.P. No. 11080/2024 which came to be dismissed by order dated 30.10.2024 and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail on the ground of suppression of facts. Grounds raised in the present petition have already been urged in the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner. Earlier petitioner had filed Crl.P. Nos. 7531/2021, 4060/2022, 13269/2023 and 11080/2024 and they came to be disposed of by orders dated 29.11.2021, 12.09.2022, 26.03.2024 and 30.10.2024 respectively. Petitioner had earlier urged ground of parity in Crl.P. No. 13269/2023. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 10 are alleged to have committed offence under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000. Delay in concluding the trial is due to lengthy cross-examination by the accused persons. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were granted bail were not holding weapons and on that ground they were granted bail. Prosecution requires atleast one more year to conclude the trial. On these grounds he prayed to reject the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record. 6. Petitioner is accused No. 11 and he is in custody since 28.07.2021. Petitioner earlier had filed the following petitions which came to be dismissed: SL.No. Case Number Date of Disposal 1. Crl.P. No. 7531/2021 29.11.2021 2. Crl.P. No. 4060/2022 12.09.2022 3. Crl.P. No. 13269/2023 26.03.2024 4. Crl.P. No. 11080/2024 30.10.2024 7. As per the charge sheet the allegation against the petitioner is that when the deceased along with his daughter Kum. Jessika was proceeding to the Bank, at that time, this petitioner – accused No. 11 met them and asked them as to where they were going and deceased told him that they were going to the Union Bank for some work. Jessika was proceeding to the Bank, at that time, this petitioner – accused No. 11 met them and asked them as to where they were going and deceased told him that they were going to the Union Bank for some work. Petitioner – accused No. 11, in turn, by making phone call, intimated the movement of the deceased to accused No. 1 and even informed the colour of shirt which the deceased was wearing while going to the Union Bank. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted the deceased inside the Union Bank with a machete. When C.W.1 went to rescue the deceased, at that time, accused No. 2 assaulted C.W.1 with machete and caused serious injury on his left hand and thereafter accused Nos. 1 to 3 escaped from the spot along with accused Nos. 4 to 9 who were waiting outside the Bank. 8. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were present at the time of incident have been granted bail on the ground that they were not holding any weapons and they have not assaulted the deceased. 9. The overt act alleged against the petitioner –accused No. 11 is that he intimated the movement of the deceased and his daughter, going to the Bank to accused No. 1. Petitioner – accused No. 11 is placed similar to that of accused Nos. 8 and 9 who have been granted bail. Therefore, petitioner – accused No. 11 is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 10. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.07.2021 nearly for 4-½ years. There are 111 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and out of them some witnesses, including eye witnesses, namely, C.W.1 to C.W.3, C.W.18, C.W.19 and C.W.20 except C.W.21, are examined. Prosecution is yet to examine 80 more witnesses. A perusal of certified copy of the order sheet of the trial Court indicates that witnesses are not secured by the prosecution on the date fixed for trial and matter is being adjourned for want of witnesses. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Praveen Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan and another , 2023 SCC Online SC 1268 has observed as under: “5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, by now, has undergone more than four and a half years’ of sentence. The prosecution intends to examine 76 witnesses, out of whom 53 have already deposed. State of Rajasthan and another , 2023 SCC Online SC 1268 has observed as under: “5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, by now, has undergone more than four and a half years’ of sentence. The prosecution intends to examine 76 witnesses, out of whom 53 have already deposed. All the crucial witnesses have already been examined. The instant case was adjourned on few occasions to enable the prosecution to examine Chauthmal Kashyap and Manohar Rathore, who were stated to be the vital witnesses. Their deposition is also complete. 6. xxx xxx 7. Taking into consideration the period already spent by the petitioner in custody coupled with the fact that conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to release him on bail.” 12. Considering the fact that still 80 more witnesses are to be examined, trial will take some reasonable time. 13. Considering the above aspects, petitioner has made out case for grant of bail with conditions. 14. In the result, the following; ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail in S.C. No. 1416/2021 (crime No. 156/2021 of Koramangala Police Station) pending on the file of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, subject to following conditions: I. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. II. Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. III. Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case. IV. Petitioner shall not involve in commission of any offence. If the petitioner is found involved in commission of any offence, prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail granted to him.