ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.24/2016 of Kodekal Police Station, Yadgiri District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) 2(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, On 14.05.2016, the complainant filed a complaint before the police alleging that on 01.05.2016 he had filed missing complaint of his brother Govindappa. On 13.05.2016 when the complainant and other family members were sitting in the house, one Manjunath, a relative of the complainant came and informed him that, himself and accused No.1 were sitting on the Katta of Hanuman Temple, at that time, accused No.1 has told him that he had illicit intimacy with one Smt. Mallamma who is coming to his land. Her husband Govindappa on coming to know about the intimacy has assaulted his wife Mallamma, the said fact came to be informed by Mallamma to accused No.1. Accused No.1 in order to finish him, took the deceased Govindappa to his land along with the petitioner and committed his murder by drowning into the water and thereafter, informed the same to Smt. Mallamma. On the basis of such information, complainant went to the police station and filed a complaint. On the basis of such complaint a case has been registered against the accused. 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 petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and missing complaint was filed on 01.05.2016 alleging that from 11.03.2015 the deceased was missing and his whereabouts are not known. He has further contended that the entire case is standing only on the confessional statement said to have been made by accused No.1, except that there are no other material. Accused No.1 has already been released on bail by this Court, therefore, on similar facts and circumstances, petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Accused No.1 has already been released on bail by this Court, therefore, on similar facts and circumstances, petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He has also contended that as the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, petitioner is not required for further interrogation or investigation. He has 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 accused/petitioner has involved in heinous offence of committing murder of deceased Govindappa and there is extra judicial confession made by accused No.1 to the effect that he has committed the alleged offence along with petitioner/accused No.2 in order to eliminate him, as he has come to know about the illicit intimacy with his wife Mallamma. 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 the other material produced along with the petition. 7. As could be seen from the complaint and the charge sheet material, the only material which is available in the case is the extra judicial confession of accused No.1, except that there are no other eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The complaint discloses the fact that initially the complaint was filed on 01.05.2016 about missing of the deceased from 11.03.2015 and thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed on 13.05.2016 on the basis of the extra judicial confession made by accused No.1. When the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and when the charge sheet has already been filed and no overtacts have been alleged against the petitioner, 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. When the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and when the charge sheet has already been filed and no overtacts have been alleged against the petitioner, 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 likesum 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 concerned Court regularly.