Budihal R.B., J.

1. This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302,201 r/w 34 of IPC registered in the respondent-police station Crime No. 46/2013. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Counsel also made the submission that accused Nos. 4 to 6 have been granted bail by the order of this Court. Hence, he submitted that on the ground of parity, the petitioners are also entitled to be granted with bail.

3. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that though the case rests on the circumstantial evidence, but looking to the circumstances collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it makes out a prima-facie against the present petitioners about their involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. He also made the submission that looking to the statements of CW. 3 and CW. 4, it goes to show that the present petitioners also participated in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.

4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R., Complaint and other charge sheet materials placed on record. Firstly on 14.02.2013, wife of the deceased made the complaint to the Station House Officer, Attibele Police Station, wherein it is stated by her that on 13.02.2014, she received a call from the police station to her mobile informing her about the possible death of her husband. She also mentioned in the complaint that the police informed her that there is a doubt that her husband was killed by certain people and buried him and she was called to identify the body. It is also mentioned in the complaint that she was informed that her husband was killed on 08.02.2013. Then she reached Bangalore on 14.02.2013 and taken to the place where the body of a person was buried. The body was exhumed and it was in a decomposed position and she was shown the items i.e., spectacles, keychain, ring, locket, metal caps of tooth which were said to have been recovered earlier by them. So she identified the items belongs to her husband, on that basis, she told that the dead body is that of her husband. Looking to the F.I.R. registered in the case, it was registered on the basis of the said complaint against the unknown persons and during the course of investigation, the present petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 by the Investigating Officer. Looking to the material collected during the investigation and as submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that CW. 3 and CW. 4 are the material witnesses in this case, but perusing the statement of these two witnesses of CW. 3 and CW. 4, they are not an eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, they are also hearsay. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and the contention of the petitioners that they are falsely implicated in the case and they have not at all involved in the commission of the alleged offences and as accused Nos. 4 to 6 have already been granted bail by order of this Court, I am of the opinion that by imposing stringent conditions to secure the presence of petitioners during the course of trial as the charge sheet has already filed, they can be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail for the alleged offences, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- and shall furnish one solvent