ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No. 61/2016 of Almel Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, The complainant has got three sons and they have separated from the complainant by taking their shares. Inspite of separation, the revenue records were not changed. The petitioner was addicted to bad vices and has incurred loans. Since one week prior to the date of alleged incident, the petitioner used to insist the complainant to transfer the lands given to him in his name. But the wife of the petitioner namely, Renuka used to tell the complainant not to change the revenue entries in the name of the petitioner since he was addicted to bad habits and he may squander the same for his bad vices. In that light, the petitioner was angry with the injured Renuka and used to quarrel with her. On 24.02.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., the petitioner again picked up a quarrel with his wife Renuka and abused her in filthy language and at that time, he told her that he would finish her. After the dinner, the complainant slept in front of his house and the injured Renuka along with her children were sleeping in front of sheet shed. At that time, petitioner who was also sleeping outside, at about 1.00 a.m., came and assaulted his wife with koitha and caused grievous injuries. On hearing the screaming voice of the injured, the complainant and others came and took her to the hospital and thereafter, complaint came to be registered. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that there was civil dispute between the complainant and the petitioner. The investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed and the injured has already been discharged from the hospital and she is out of danger. He has further contended that petitioner and the injured are now intending to join together and there is no difference of opinion between them and the offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has further contended that petitioner and the injured are now intending to join together and there is no difference of opinion between them and the offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has also contended that petitioner hails from a respectable family 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 petitioner has addicted to bad vices and he has assaulted the injured with koitha with an intention to cause the death and the injured has sustained grievous injuries on her body. He has further contended that, at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he tampering with the prosecution witnesses and he may abscond 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 and the other material produced along with the petition. No doubt, the records indicate that it is the petitioner who has assaulted the injured with koitha and has caused grievous injuries. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that charge sheet has already been filed and the injured has been discharged from the hospital and she is out of danger. When the charge sheet has already been filed and the offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as the dispute is between the husband and wife, 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. 7. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused 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 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.