ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. Perused the records. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that a person by name Shankrappa Madevappa Mavinatop lodged a complaint on 30.11.2015 making allegations that he received an information from one Muttappa son of Rajashekarappa Wodeyanapur on 18.02.2015 the petitioner herein has called this witness, Muttappa, over phone and according to that he went to the accused on 19.02.2015 evening at 4.15 PM and boarded his Maruti Omni vehicle. The said vehicle was driven by the accused towards the Highway and there when he saw in the vehicle the dead body of the father of the complainant by name Madevappa Mavintop, then the witness Muttappa has questioned the accused, then the accused disclosed him that the deceased had been was committing theft of some articles in the land of the accused-petitioner. Therefore, the accused has strangulated the said person and committed his murder. Having heard the same, the said witness Muttappa wanted to get down from the vehicle. But at that time, the accused threatened him with dire consequences, if he do not accompany him. Saying so, the accused took the vehicle towards Abalur-Suttakoti road and stopped at Itigi Cross and put the dead body into a gunny bag and again took the vehicle towards highway and reached near Kumarapattana and threw the dead body near a stream, which was later detected by the Police on 20.03.2015. 3. The Police at the initial stage have registered the case in UDR and then conducted inquest and thereafter burried the body. This witness-Muttappa, has kept quiet upto 30.11.2015 without intimating anybody with regard to this particular incident. It is the allegation of the prosecution that on 30.11.2015 this Muttappa had disclosed the said fact to the complainant and in turn the complainant has filed the report before the Police, on which basis the Police have registered a case and investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet in Crime No. 27/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 506, 201 of IPC. 4. In the statement of Muttappa nothing has been stated as to why the accused has called upon him to go along with him in his vehicle, when the accused has already committed the murder of Madevappa. Further, there is a long delay in disclosing this particular fact to the complainant. 4. In the statement of Muttappa nothing has been stated as to why the accused has called upon him to go along with him in his vehicle, when the accused has already committed the murder of Madevappa. Further, there is a long delay in disclosing this particular fact to the complainant. The records also disclose that an exhumation proceeding was conducted for the purpose of conducting postmortem examination. The postmortem report also shows that the cause of death could not be ascertained because of the skeletal parts recovered by the Police under the UDR. Further added to that, there is no material available to connect the accused person, at this stage. Hence, when the case entirely depends upon the circumstantial evidence, there must be strong and unbeatable circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the accused to show that he must be the perpetrator. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to certain stringent conditions as there are no previous bad antecedents alleged against the accused. Further added to that, the accused was arrested on 25.03.2016 and since then he has been in judicial custody. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the following order is passed. ORDER : Petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 27/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 506 and 201 of IPC of Hamsbhavi Police Station, now pending in C.C. No. 82/2016 on the file of the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Haveri, on the following conditions. 1. The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for genuine reasons. 4. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.