The court's decision was influenced by the finding that there were sufficient materials to constitute the offence under Sec. 302 of IPC and that the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their actions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.12/2022 of Hosahalli Police Station, pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural district, Doddaballapura, initially registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 114, 323, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and the charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 307, 149 of the IPC, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Mr.Muniraju

2. Heard Sri. Subramanya H.V, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Krishna Kumar K.K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. They are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They were apprehended on 9/5/2022 and since then they are in judicial custody. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that initially the case under Sec. 307 of IPC was registered against accused Nos.1 to 10. Accused Nos. 3 to 10 are already enlarged on bail. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the case will not fall under Sec. 302 of IPC; at the most, it will fall under Sec. 304 of IPC. The incident might have occurred as a result of self defence. The offence is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the benefit of parity with the other accused who are already enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there was dispute regarding the property which was granted in favour of accused No.5. The deceased had filed the suit for permanent injunction and he failed to get favorable order of temporary injunction. Thereafter, he trespassed over the property. To save the property, the petitioners have resisted the high handed acts of the deceased. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. C.Ws.1 to 6 are injured eye witnesses who have seen the incident. Accused No.1 has thrown petrol on the deceased while accused No.2 has lit fire which resulted in the death of the deceased on 14/5/2022. The CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer from the petrol bunk discloses that the petitioners have purchased petrol and the matchstick immediately before the commission of the offence. Under such circumstances, it is a clear case under Sec. 302 of IPC and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:

REASONS

7. It is stated that there was a property dispute between the accused and the deceased and that is the motive for the petitioners to commit the offence, C.Ws.1 to 6 are said to be the injured eye witnesses. Statements of these witnesses prima facie disclose commission of the offence by the petitioners. It is the con