K.S. Mudagal, J.

Petitioners in these petitions are Accused Nos.1 to 4, 6, 7, 14 & 15 in Crime No.41/2018 of Hiriadka Police Station of Udupi District. Petitioners and others were charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 read with 34, 35, 120(B) & 149 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: That petitioners belong to an organization called Bajarang Dal and were opposing cow slaughtering. Deceased Hussainabba was transporting the cows for slaughtering. Therefore, the accused conspired to catch hold of Hussainabba while transporting the cattle and implicate him in the criminal case. In execution of such conspiracy, on 30.05.2018 at 4.00 a.m. near Sinabettu of Perdoor village, accused armed with deadly weapons along with the police intercepted the scorpio vehicle, in which Hussainabba, CWs-3 & 4 were transporting the cattle. On seeing the accused and police, CWs-3 & 4 escaped. Hussainabba was assaulted by the accused and done to death. Accused Nos.8, 9 & 13 police officers, to conceal the evidence of offence, registered Crime No.40/2018 under Sections 8, 9 & 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter & Cattle Preservation Act, 1964, Sections 11(1)(a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, & Sections 279, 429 & 379 of IPC. Accused Nos.8 to 13 transported the dead body to an isolated place in Sinabettu. Then accused No.8 obtained a complaint from CW-31 and registered UDR case. Thereafter, CW-1 brother of the victim filed complaint alleging that accused No.1 and other volunteers of Bajarang Dal have committed the murder of his brother.

3. Accused No.3 apprehending his arrest has filed the petition for anticipatory bail. Earlier bail petitions filed by Accused Nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 14 & 15 were rejected in Crl.P.No.4881/2018 and connected matters, holding that only after filing the charge sheet, the Court can consider whether prima facie materials exist against those accused. It was further held that since investigation is going on, it was not feasible to grant bail to them.

4. Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Nishitkumar Shetty, the Counsel on record, Sri Dinesh Kumar K. Rao and Sri Yohan Grace representing the petitioners submit that even as per the charge sheet, the petitioners conspired to trap the deceased while illegally transporting the cattle and hand over him to the police and they had not intended to commit the murder. It is further contended that as per the statements of the eye-witnesses CWs-22 & 23 recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, the victim had not died at the spot and he was taken by the police in their jeep. It is contended that at the first instance, except accused No.1, the other accused were not named and they were implicated subsequently merely on the ground that they belonged to a particular organization.

5. Learned Counsel Sri B.Lethif representing the victims, submits that he has no written submissions to file. Smt. Namitha Mahesh.B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri B.Lethif, learned Counsel representing the victims submit that there is sufficient material to show that the petitioners are the culprits. They further submit that the death is homicidal one and before the Investigating Officer, the eyewitnesses have named the petitioners. So far as accused No.3, it is submitted that he is absconding and his detention is required to recover the vehicle involved in the commission of offence.

6. The postmortem report and other medical records show that the victim had sustained 21 injuries and the death is homicidal one. However, the question is, whether there is prima facie material or reasonable ground to believe that petitioners are guilty of commission of the murder of Hussainabba.

7. There is no dispute that accused No.8 at the first instance registered Crime No.40/2018 stating that on the credible information of illegal transportation of cattle on 30.05.2018, himself and his team intercepted a