ORDER : 1. The petitioner is accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC in Crime No. 82/2016 registered by Ramapura police station, Kollegala. 2. Heard Sri. Manjunath N.D. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B. Visweswaraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had married the deceased on 27.06.2016 at Bengaluru. She was found dead by the Forest Officials in Mucchubavi forest area. Accordingly, the Deputy Range Officer has lodged the instant complaint. He argues that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no recovery of the jewelry belonging to the deceased, though the same is alleged in the charge-sheet. He further contends that the petitioner is law abiding citizen and ekes out his livelihood as a coolie. He submits that in the absence of any circumstances pointing towards his complicity, the petitioner shall be entitled for bail and accordingly, prays for allowing this petition. 4. Per contra, Sri. B. Visweswaraiah, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submits that admittedly, the petitioner was married to the deceased few day prior to the date of incident. The prosecution has recovered the weapons said to have been used for the offence. In the circumstances, he prays for dismissing the petition. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records. 6. The complaint is lodged by the Deputy Range Forest Officer. The entire case is hinging upon the circumstantial evidence. Though the charge-sheet alleges that the petitioner had taken the jewelry belonging to the deceased, there is no analogous recovery from the petitioner. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the deceased had earlier married to one Sri. Harish, CW8 prior to marrying the accused-petitioner. 7. In the light of the fact that the allegation in the charge-sheet is specific to the effect that the petitioner had taken away the jewelry belonging to the deceased and the police have not produced any material to show that the jewelry was recovered from the possession of the petitioner coupled with the fact that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the circumstantial evidence, in my view, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. 8. 8. In the circumstances, in my view, this petition merits consideration and deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is directed that: (i) The petitioner shall be released on bail upon his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation, if any and appear before him as and when called upon; (iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him disclosing such facts to the investigating officer; (iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities; (v) If the petitioner violates any one conditions, the prosecution shall liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Petition allowed.