ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.186/2016 (C.C.No.3567/2016) of Raichur Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, The complainant’s daughter Nandini was given in marriage to accused No.1 and she had delivered two children and during the second delivery and before it, accused No.1 harassed her and in that context, a panchayat was convened. In the said panchayat, accused No.1 was instructed to take care of his wife properly. When that being the case, on 28.08.2016, at about 8.30 p.m., accused No.1 came to the house of the complainant and requested to send his wife Nandini along with him and also gave criminal intimidation to take out the life. Thereafter, he started searching his father-in-law. When he went to wine shop, he saw his father-in-law namely Venkatesh in the wine shop consuming alcohol. When accused No.1 questioned his father-in-law as to why he is not sending his wife Nandini along with him, the deceased-Venkatesh told accused No.1 that if he brings elders, he will send back his daughter along with accused No.1. At that time, accused No.1 assaulted on the head of the father-in-law, Venkatesh, with a beer bottle and as a result of the same, he sustained bleeding injuries. In the meanwhile, accused No.2 came there; thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 both carried the deceased on a motorbike near the railway gate. Accused No.1 again assaulted the deceased on his head with a hand size of stone and caused the death. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the entire prosecution material indicates that there is no overt-act on the part of petitioner/accused No.2. He has contended that petitioner has come to the place of incident at a later point of time, that too only after accused No.1 assaulting on the head of the deceased with a beer bottle. The petitioner has helped accused No.1 to carry the deceased on the motorbike as per the request of accused No.1 and nothing more than that. He has contended that petitioner has come to the place of incident at a later point of time, that too only after accused No.1 assaulting on the head of the deceased with a beer bottle. The petitioner has helped accused No.1 to carry the deceased on the motorbike as per the request of accused No.1 and nothing more than that. He has further contended that petitioner is innocent and he has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the petitioner has cooperated and has helped accused No.1 after commission of the offence to carry the body of the deceased and in that light, there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. He has further contended that, at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the contents of the complaint, FIR and other material produced along with the petition. 7. As could be seen from the records, the statement of the eyewitnesses indicate that accused No.2/petitioner has come to the scene of the alleged incident only after accused No.1 assaulting on the head of the deceased with a beer bottle and thereafter, at the request of accused No.1, he has taken the deceased on his motorbike. Except carrying the deceased on motorbike, no other overt-acts have been attributed in any of the material which has been produced along with the petition. Even the postmortem report shows that the death is due to head injury sustained by the deceased. When it is specific case of the prosecution that accused No.1 assaulted the deceased on the head with beer bottle and with a hand size of stone and due to that, he has died, there is no direct overt-act of the petitioner in the alleged crime. When it is specific case of the prosecution that accused No.1 assaulted the deceased on the head with beer bottle and with a hand size of stone and due to that, he has died, there is no direct overt-act of the petitioner in the alleged crime. When the charge sheet has already been filed and the petitioner has not done any overt-act, I feel that if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses; (iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail. (v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission.