JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Section 302, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act registered in respondent - police station Crime No.146/2016. Initially, case was registered against accused No.1 Shashikumar @ Shashi. But subsequently, during investigation, the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2 in the case. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. As per the complaint averments, the accused No.1 Shashikumar himself has lodged the complaint at the first instance alleging that accused No.1 and the deceased were friends. Deceased had borrowed Rs.27,000/- from accused No.1 about 6-7 months ago promising him to repay within 15-20 days. In spite of the same deceased failed to repay. On 21.8.2016, accused No.1 felt to threaten the deceased to get back his money. He left his house with knife kept at his waist. At 8.00 p.m. called upon the deceased over phone. At 8.15 p.m. deceased Manjunatha reached the village circle on Dio motorcycle. Accused No.1 and deceased went to Bande Kunte on the said two wheeler at 8.20 p.m. Accused No.1 demanded to return the said amount from the deceased. Then deceased abused accused No.1 by using vulgar words and in a fit of rage, due to such abuse, accused No.1 got provoked and took out the knife from the waist, stabbed the deceased on his lower abdomen. Deceased attempted to grab accused No.1, then accused No.1 again stabbed the deceased. Deceased fell down. Accused No.1 cut off the head of the deceased with knife, kept it below the seat of two wheeler, put three mobiles in the box of two wheeler and felt to intimate the police. Accordingly, along with the severed head of the deceased and with the two wheeler he went to the police station and lodged the first information against himself that it is he who has committed the murder of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as the petitioner Raveesha is concerned, absolutely there is no material collected by the prosecution during investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as the petitioner Raveesha is concerned, absolutely there is no material collected by the prosecution during investigation. Only on the basis of alleged voluntary statement said to have been given by accused No.1 on 25.8.2016 he has been arrayed in the case. He has submitted that now investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. No prima facie case is made out against accused No.2. Hence, he may be admitted to regular bail by imposing reasonable conditions. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments opposed the petition and submitted that there is material to show the involvement of accused No.2-petitioner herein. He caught hold the deceased and thereby facilitated accused No.1 to commit murder of the deceased. Hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. It is seen that on the date of the incident itself accused No.1 has gone to the police station and lodged the complaint against himself narrating everything and even he has mentioned that if he is taken, he will show the place at which he severed the head of the deceased from the body and also show the place at which knife was thrown. His voluntary statement was also recorded on the next day i.e., on 22.8.2016 wherein again he has repeated the same facts and at his instance all the incriminating materials were seized in the presence of panch witnesses. The prosecution material also shows that again on 25.8.2016 accused No.1 has given voluntary statement implicating the petitioner that he along with the petitioner herein have committed the murder of the deceased. To implicate accused No.2, the petitioner herein, the basis for the prosecution is the voluntary statement alleged to have been given by accused No.1. 8. Looking to the complaint as well as the voluntary statement given by the accused No.1 on the very next day i.e., 22.8.2016, it is seen that if really, the petitioner herein was also with him and both of them committed the alleged murder, he could have mentioned the said fact either in the complaint or in the next voluntary statement recorded on 22.8.2016. When petitioner herein has been implicated on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1 recorded on 25.8.2016, there is a delay of 4 days and the voluntary statement made by the co-accused is not binding on the petitioner and it is a matter of trial. Now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Considering these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of petitioner-accused No.2. 9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act registered in respondent - police station Crime No.146/2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.