ORDER Budihal R.B., J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC registered in respondent-police station crime No. 76/2011. The brief facts averred in the petition are that, on 16.4.2011 at about 14.30 a.m. when the complainant being police constantly was on his duty, happened to see some persons peeping into the sump of an old building situated near Kanteerava studio. When the complainant went near and saw he could see a dead body of a male person covered with papers. Then he informed the same to the P.S.I. The P.S.I. came to the spot and with the help of the public the dead body was taken out of the sump and found the dead body of a male person in a decomposed state. There were injuries on the backside of the head of the deadbody and the age of the person dead was approximately 25-30 years. On observing the same, the complainant could make out that the person is done to death by some unknown persons and thrown the body in the sump and covered the same with papers. After investigation, the respondent-police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Hence, he has approached the Court seeking his release on bail on the ground that he is innocent and he has not at all committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he is ready to abide by any conditions that would be imposed. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, the FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet material. The complaint is made by Sri C.M. Umesh, the police constable, which is dated 16.4.2011. At the end of the said complaint it is stated that by looking to the deadbody it appears that some unknown miscreants for some unknown purpose might have committed the murder of the deceased with a heavy object about 3-4 days back. However, the complainant is not the eyewitness to the incident. As per the case of the prosecution, one Sri. M. Venkatesh-C.W. 10 is the eyewitness. However, the complainant is not the eyewitness to the incident. As per the case of the prosecution, one Sri. M. Venkatesh-C.W. 10 is the eyewitness. His statement was recorded on 21.4.2011. According to his statement, the alleged incident took place on 7.4.2011 during night. On that day at 11.10 p.m. he after having his dinner went to Lakshmi Venkateshwara mini hall situate at Nandini Layout Canteerava studio main road for the purpose of sleeping wherein he saw one Sri Manjunath, the accused and by his side one unknown person, both were sleeping in the passage of the mini hall situate at Nandini Layout old police station building. Thinking that the said unknown person may be the friend of Sri Manjunath, he went to the first floor to sleep there and at about 11.45 p.m. he peeped through the window of the first floor of the mini hall. He saw accused Sri Manjunath throwing size stone on the back portion of the head of that unknown person and heard the sound 'Aah'. He became frightened and stood at the first floor itself and saw that the said Manjunath after getting confirmed that the unknown person is dead, took out amount from the pant pocket of the deceased and dragged the deadbody to the cellar portion of the said building and threw the size stone to the nearby bush. Due to fear, on the next day itself, he informed his owner Sri V.K. Ramanna-C.W. 11 that he is going to his wife's place and left the place. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that according to the statement of C.W. 11-Sri V.K. Ramanna which was also recorded on 21.4.2011, he is the owner of Lakshmi Venkateshwara mini hall. That on 16.4.2011 at 3.00 p.m. when he was nearby the mini hall, people gathered there He also went to the spot and when enquired he came to know that some days back some unknown person for some unknown purpose has committed the murder of the deceased and thrown the dead body in the water sump. It is his further statement that on 17.4.2011 in the morning C.W. 10 Sri M. Venkatesh who was working as Watchman in the said mini hall informed him that he will go to his native place and went away. It is his further statement that on 17.4.2011 in the morning C.W. 10 Sri M. Venkatesh who was working as Watchman in the said mini hall informed him that he will go to his native place and went away. When he came back from the village to duty on 21.4.2011, C.W. 11 informed Sri Venkatesh that on 16.4.2011 a deadbody of an unknown person was found in the cellar portion of the sump and enquired as to whether he know anything about the same. Then C.W. 10 informed as to what he saw on 7.4.2011 night. If the statement of C.W. 11 V.K. Ramanna is taken to be true, then it goes to show that C.W. 10 Sri M. Venkatesh was at the place till 17.4.2011 after the alleged incident on 7.4.2011. But looking to the statement of C.W. 10 Venkatesh it goes to show that after seeing the incident personally, as he was frightened he went to his wife's native place on the very next day of the incident and that was the reason for him in not informing about the incident either to C.W. 11 V.K. Ramanna or to the police. Looking to the statements of CWs. 10 and 11, it can be seen that there is inconsistency in the case of the prosecution. According to the complainant, the incident was noticed by him on 16.4.2011 itself and in spite of that the statement of C.W. 11. Sri V.K. Ramanna, owner of the Lakshmi Venkateshwara mini hall was not recorded on 16.4.2011 itself. But it was recorded on 21.4.2011. Perusing the statement of witnesses i.e., C.Ws. 10 and 11 who are the main witnesses according to the prosecution case, they were recorded after 14 days of the happening of the alleged incident. There is no proper or plausible explanation by the prosecution with regard to the said delay in recording the statement of the alleged eyewitness and owner of Lakshmi Venkateshwara mini hall. 5. I have also perused the P.M. report. The Doctor who has conducted P.M. examination over the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death is due to crush injury. 6. I have also perused the voluntary statement said to have been given by the accused. 5. I have also perused the P.M. report. The Doctor who has conducted P.M. examination over the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death is due to crush injury. 6. I have also perused the voluntary statement said to have been given by the accused. It is true that in the voluntary statement the accused said to have admitted that he will show the place where he has thrown the stone on the head of the deceased, the sump where he threw the deadbody and also the place where he has thrown the size stone. The investigation Officer said to have seized the size stone under the mahazar in the presence of the punch witnesses. But the report of the FSL particularly with regard to the size stone, although it is mentioned that on article No. 6 which is a size stone blood was detected and it is the human blood, it is mentioned that blood grouping of the blood stains on item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 could not be determined as the results of the test were inconclusive. Therefore, as per the story of the prosecution the only eyewitness is C.W. 10 Sri M. Venkatesh and I have already discussed about the inconsistency in his statement and also in the statement of C.W. 11-Sri V.K. Ramanna and also there is a delay of about 14 days in recording the statement of these witnesses and also in filing the complaint. So looking to all these materials on record, I am of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds at this stage to believe that the petitioner-accused has committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. 7. So far as the apprehension of the prosecution that if released on bail, petitioner may abscond or he may tamper the prosecution witnesses, reasonable conditions can be imposed, which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of IPC. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet is filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of IPC. Hence, petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 76/2011 subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) He shall not tamer with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. (iii) He shall attend to the concerned Court regularly. Petition allowed.