JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.157/2019 of Kittur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Shashikala had filed a complaint before Kittur Police stating that her husband-Manjunath, who was in the habit of consuming alcohol, under intoxicated state of mind, has fell down from a bridge near Dombarkoppa, near Durgamba Dhabha on NH-4 service road, Kittur. The police took statements and registered a case in UD No.47/2019 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on 23.11.2019. Subsequently, the father of the deceased namely Mahadevappa Shivpuji filed a complaint on 13/12/2019 before the respondent police, alleging that her daughter-in-law-Shashikala along with the petitioner conspired and killed his son. Based on the said complaint, the respondent-police registered a case in Crime No.157/2019 against two persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2019. The police, after investigation, have filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated 02.06.2020 in Crl.Misc.No.238/2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitness to the incident. The petitioner/accused No.2 came to be implicated only the ground that he is having illicit relationship with accused No.1. It is his further submission that in the postmortem report which is dated 08.12.2019, there is a reference to crime No.157/2019 registered on 13.12.2019 and the same goes to show that the police have created false documents. It is his further submission that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.12.2019 and since the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. It is his further submission that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.12.2019 and since the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. It is his further submission that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail and ready to furnish surety. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that as per the charge sheet papers, the petitioner is having illicit relationship with accused No.1. It is his further submission that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and that he along with accused No.1 have committed the murder of Manjunath by throttling after making him to consume alcohol. It is his further submission that if the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The accusation against the petitioner is that he is having illicit relationship with accused No.1 and the deceased was coming in his way and therefore accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together and committed the murder of Manjunath. 7. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are: "(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused." 8. In a decision in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttara Pradesh and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society." 9. In the present case, investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Thre are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is the resident of the address shown in the cause title and the same is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in Crime No.157/2019 of Kittur Police Station subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety. ii ) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. ii i) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court/Sessions court without prior permission till disposal of the case.