JUDGMENT : 1. This is a petition filed by petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC registered in respondent-police Station Crime No.180/2016. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 25.09.2016 one Gangappa son of Fakkirappa Talvar has filed complaint before the Garag police, alleging many things. On 23.04.2016 he came to know that his daughter by name Manjula @ Savita W/o Ningappa Naikar, in her husband's house, on 22.04.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. she slept after having dinner. On 23.04.2016 around 2.00 am. it is reported that there is unnatural death of the deceased. Firstly UDR case was registered in UDR No.14/2016 under Section 174C of Cr.P.C. But subsequently after a lapse of nearly five months a complaint came to be filed stating that, the petitioner herein, the husband of the deceased, who was addicted to drinking alcohol. Earlier to the marriage, his daughter was suffering from T.B. and after giving treatment she was cured. After post-natal care, Manjula @ Savita underwent family planning operation, as an effect of that operation, she sustained septic for which also she was given treatment. After recovery, she was sent to the matrimonial home. She was also physically weak. The petitioner, who was addicted to drinking, was harassing her for money. At that time, he was not doing any work and was not looking after the family. Therefore, the deceased was advising the petitioner to give up vice. But the petitioner, without heeding to her request, was abusing and threatening that he would teach her a lesson. Deceased expressed the same before the complainant, who in turn pacified her saying that her husband would improve in future. The further allegation is that the village people were talking about the petitioner committing murder of his wife by throttling her neck. Her death had occurred in a suspicious manner. The complainant coming to know enquired with the petitioner who gave evasive reply. On the basis of further statement of the complainant, ultimately the case came to be registered as per the alleged offences. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. The complainant coming to know enquired with the petitioner who gave evasive reply. On the basis of further statement of the complainant, ultimately the case came to be registered as per the alleged offences. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other charge sheet materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition. So also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwad rejecting the bail application. 5. Looking to the materials placed on record, firstly the case was registered in UDR No. 14/2016 and for a period nearly five months there was no case as against the present petitioner. But after recording of further statement of the complainant the police have registered a case against present petitioner for the alleged offences. The complainant in the further statement stated that, in the village people were talking that, it is the petitioner herein who committed the murder of his wife. On the basis of the same further statement was given by the complainant before the police. Therefore, there is delay of more than five months in giving said statement before the police. 6. I have also perused the statements of all the witnesses made before investigating officer during the investigation. It is no doubt true the statement of one Jyoti Naikar @ Talvar, the daughter of the deceased, which statement was recorded by the police, it is stated that, her father throttled her mother and caused the death of her mother between the night at 9.00 p.m of 22.04.2016 and 2.00 p.m. of 23.04.2016. Her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on 26.09.2016. If really she was an eye witness to the incident, immediately she would have stated the same thing before the police. Registration of the case as an unnatural death in UDR No. 14/2016 is material in appreciating case of the prosecution at this stage. 7. I have perused the postmortem report. It is no doubt true the doctor who conducted the autopsy gave his opinion that on perusal of chemical analysis and Histopathological report he is of the opinion that the death is due to compression of neck. If this is opinion of the doctor in the postmortem report. 7. I have perused the postmortem report. It is no doubt true the doctor who conducted the autopsy gave his opinion that on perusal of chemical analysis and Histopathological report he is of the opinion that the death is due to compression of neck. If this is opinion of the doctor in the postmortem report. But in view of the such long delay in giving further statement by the mother and the statement of daughter showing the involvement of present petitioner in the case, is a matter to be considered by the trial Court after recording of the evidence. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is contention of the petitioner that he is innocent and has not committed alleged offence. The petitioner has undertaken that he is ready abide by condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence I am of the opinion that, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail. 8. Hence petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: [a] Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the like-sum with the satisfaction of concerned Court. [b] Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. [c] Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.