ORDER : Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned HCGP for respondent-State. 2. This petition is under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested by the respondent - police in connection with Crime No.242/2017 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that, the petitioner and his relative i.e., deceased, namely, Sourab Das, were both working in a hotel called Imperial Hotel, situated on Mysuru road, near Satellite Bus Station. Their employer provided him a house at Hosaguddadahalli for their residence. It appears that the deceased and the petitioner used to quarrel with each other in connection with monetary matter. On 20.06.2017 at about 2.00 pm, the petitioner went near the hotel, where the complainant Mithu Das was working and told him that in the morning he had quarreled with deceased when he asked him for money. Since Sourab Das ignored his request for money and slept, he got infuriated and assaulted on the right side of his face with a wooden piece and thereby the latter bleeded from his mouth and ears. Thereafter, complainant came to that place and saw Sourab Das being dead. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The petitioner will regularly appear before the trial Court during trial and therefore, this petition may be allowed. 5. Learned HCGP submits that there are statements of two witnesses, namely, Ramesh and Siddalingappa, which shows that they saw the petitioner having coming down the stairs soon after the incident. They are the two witnesses who saw the petitioner for the first time after the incident and therefore, there are prima-facie materials to hold this petitioner guilty of the offence. He further argues that, whatever the petitioner revealed before the complainant amounts to extra judicial confession and this confession itself is sufficient enough to reject the bail. He also argues that the bail petition filed by this petitioner earlier, was rejected. 6. I have perused the statements of Ramesh and Siddalingappa. They cannot be treated as eye witnesses. Both of them speak that they were able to see the petitioner coming down the stairs soon after the alleged incident. Revelation made by the petitioner before the complainant is no doubt an extra judicial confession. 6. I have perused the statements of Ramesh and Siddalingappa. They cannot be treated as eye witnesses. Both of them speak that they were able to see the petitioner coming down the stairs soon after the alleged incident. Revelation made by the petitioner before the complainant is no doubt an extra judicial confession. It is well established principle that, it is a weak piece of evidence and unless the credibility can be attached to it by corroborative evidence, it can not be acted upon. The investigation has been completed, charge sheet is filed and the prosecution is supposed to establish circumstances to connect the petitioner with the incident. Having regard to all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be admitted to bail by subjecting him to certain conditions. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.242/2017 registered by Byatarayanapura Police Station, subject to his executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and furnishing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. iii. He shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer iv. He shall not directly or indirectly threaten the witnesses v. He shall regularly appear before the Court.