ORDER The petitioners are ranked as accused 1 to 3 in Crime No. 14 of 2009 facing charge for offences punishable under Sections 363, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which case after investigation has resulted in filing of the charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201 and 149 of the IPC. 2. The petitioners are in judicial custody and seek grant of bail. 3. Heard both sides; Perused records. It shows that on the complaint of one Gudadappa Yellappa Gadakari, the investigation was taken up, in which he alleged that his son Yallappa was an actor and was regularly visiting Yallapur for drama rehearsal. On 13-12-2008 at about 5 p.m. he had gone to Yallapur for drama rehearsal but did not return even after 11.00 p.m. As the search failed, the complainant, therefore, lodged report regarding missing of Yallapur at Yamakanmaradi Police Station and thereafter the search continued. 4. On 6-1-2009, he learnt that a dead body was found within the limits of Ramagonatti Railway Gate. He visited the Railway Police Station, Belgaum and found to his surprise that the Railway Police of Belgaum had registered the case on 14-12-2008, regarding accidental death of unknown person. The material available with them was shown to him and he identified the clothes as that of his son Yallappa, and being satisfied that Yallappa was not alive and he lodged a report suspecting involvement of petitioners and some others. To sustain the said charge he alleged that his son Yallappa had carnal relationship with Ningawwa Gojanal, who is the sister of 1st petitioner-Siddappa Doddasadeppa Gundyagol, and in that regard he had paid Rs. 20,000/- to Siddappa Doddasadeppa Gundyagol one year ago to put an end to the quarrel. However, the said Siddappa Gundyagol was still enimical towards his son Yallappa. He further alleged that on 13-12-2008 when Yallappa had gone for drama rehearsal to Yallapur he did not return and on inquiry he learnt that petitioners herein had committed his murder. That case was transferred by the Railway Police to the jurisdictional police and it was re-registered only on 29-1-2009. Thereafter, also the jurisdictional police did nothing in the investigation except for what was done by the Railway Police Station. That case was transferred by the Railway Police to the jurisdictional police and it was re-registered only on 29-1-2009. Thereafter, also the jurisdictional police did nothing in the investigation except for what was done by the Railway Police Station. However, during the course of investigation they have examined witnesses by name Lagamappa Fakirappa Gadakari, Irappa Dummanaik and also Bhimappa Fakirappa Gadakari. They claim to have seen the 2nd petitioner along with the deceased. Hence, the last seen theory used to indict the 2nd petitioner as offender. As far as 1st petitioner is concerned, he is roped in on the basis he had received Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant regarding alleged illicit intimacy between the deceased and his sister. As regards 3rd petitioner is concerned, there is not much that is said by the prosecution. Apart from this, it is alleged that Siddappa Gundyagol is said to have stated on 7-2-2009 that accused gave extra-judicial confession of having killed Yallappa. Based on this material the prosecution has resisted grant of bail. 5. We had given sufficient opportunity to the Investigation Officer to make available the CD and file a statement disclosing the material which according to them at this juncture shows involvement of petitioners in the homicidal death of Yallappa. But despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the material disclosed above is the only material which is being reiterated by the prosecution. The question therefore is whether this material is sufficient to deny benefit of bail to the petitioners? 6. It is not in dispute that the case is based only on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances like last seen together and making of extra-judicial confession may be of importance. But such material should be of convincing nature to conclude that it is enough to hold that the accused may have committed the crime in question. The prosecution has had the opportunity of interrogating petitioners after their arrest and nothing has been recovered at their instance which may fortify the allegations against them of their involvement in the homicidal death. 7. Be that as it may, the investigation is not yet complete and it is in the process. The material referred to above, in my opinion, raises a suspicion against the petitioners. 7. Be that as it may, the investigation is not yet complete and it is in the process. The material referred to above, in my opinion, raises a suspicion against the petitioners. But as it is not direct material indicting them for serious charge of offence under Section 302 of the IPC and since they are not required for further investigation, they could be admitted to bail. Hence, the following.- ORDER The petition is allowed. Petitioners are admitted to bail subject to following conditions.- I. The• petitioners shall execute bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. II. The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution material or prevail upon witnesses by any means. III. The petitioners shall mark attendance before the SHO of the complainant police station• on every Saturday between. 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. until further orders. IV. The petitioners shall not leave the sessions jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.