ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.218/2016 of Afzalpur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, One Smt. Vandana has lodged a complaint on 02.11.2016 alleging that her husband namely, Mahadev was going to Kalaburagi to attend a Cradle ceremony on his motorcycle. At about 7.00 p.m., her son was informed by Baiju that Mahadev has fallen near the land of one Nahimsha Makandar with severe injuries over his body and he is in serious condition. Immediately, he was shifted to a Hospital in Solapur. Her son along with relatives went to the spot and then to Solapur. At about 9.30 p.m., son of the complainant informed her that her husband has breathed his last due to the injuries sustained by him. It is further alleged that the deceased was Member of the Gram Panchayat during the earlier period and there was animosity between the deceased-Mahadev and Amogasidda with regard to ration shop and due to the political animosity between them, on 02.11.2016 when the deceased was going on his motorcycle, near the land of one Nahimsha Makandar, they have done away with the life of Mahadev by assaulting him. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered against the accused persons. 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 been falsely implicated in this case due to the political animosity. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and even the complaint and statement of the witnesses would indicate that the petitioner has not involved in the alleged crime in any manner. It is further contended that the circumstances which have been brought by the prosecution are that, extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before CWs.2 to 5 and prior to the incident the accused persons were standing at the place of the incident. Except that nothing is there in the case to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime. The investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Except that nothing is there in the case to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime. The investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is a respectable member of the society and 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 there is confessional statement made by the petitioner before CWs.2 to 5 and prior to the incident, the other witnesses have seen the accused persons standing at the place of incident. There was animosity between the petitioner and the deceased and with that motive, the petitioner along with other accused persons has committed the alleged offence. 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. I have also perused the statements of the witnesses which has been recorded at the time of investigation. 7. On going through the complaint and other material, it would indicate that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution is intending to rely upon two circumstances, one is, prior to the incident at about 6.00 p.m., the petitioner along with other accused persons was standing near the land of one Nahimsha Makandar and another one is, extra judicial confession said to have been made by the petitioner before CWs.2 to 5. The entire case rests on these two circumstances and there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. At this juncture, only on the basis of the said circumstances, it cannot be held that it is the petitioner who has involved in the alleged crime. The prosecution has to establish during the trial beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the petitioner alone who has involved in the alleged crime and who was present at the time of the alleged incident. The prosecution has to establish during the trial beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the petitioner alone who has involved in the alleged crime and who was present at the time of the alleged incident. As the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, I feel that custodial continuation of the petitioner is not just and proper. Therefore, 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 the petitioner 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.