JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.154/2020 of Kudligi Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 109, 366 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sri.Nagappa S/o Karibasappa aged about 48 years has filed complaint that he is residing with his family at Gajapura village and the accused persons are also residing in the same street in the same village. He further alleged that the petitioner Sri.Mallikarjuna S/o Krushnappa aged about 30 years always talking with his daughter-victim girl, he advicsed the petitioner not to talk with his daughter but the petitioner did not change his attitude. He further alleged that the informant has informed the parents and family members of petitioner. But the family members of the petitioner have not heeded the same and they co-operated the petitioner herein and abetted him to kidnap the said victim girl. Further the informant alleged that on 01.07.2020 at about 12.30 p.m. at Kottur road, near Kallukunte Katte, informant's daughter went to attend the nature call, she did not return to home. Thereafter, the informant narrated the fact to his son Maruthesha and in turn the said Maruthesh told that when he returned from their land, he saw that his sister victim girl and petitioner were talking with each other at Kottur Road. Thereafter, the informant and his sons went to the house of the petitioner and complained the same before the parents of the petitioner. The accused Nos.2 to 4 in the very said Crime No.154/2020 i.e. the parents and the brother of the petitioner herein replied the informant that they themselves suggested the petitioner to kidnap the victim girl. On the basis of the complaint a case came to be registered in Crime No.154/2020 of Kudligi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 109,363 read with section 34 of IPC. And on 06.07.2020 the Police have found the petitioner and the victim at Sondur bus stand and took them to Kudligi Police Station and recorded the statement of the victim and the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the bail application in Crl.Miss.No.5207/2020 before the III Addl. Sessions Judge Ballari, sitting at Hosapete and the same is rejected. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking bail. 3. The petitioner has filed the bail application in Crl.Miss.No.5207/2020 before the III Addl. Sessions Judge Ballari, sitting at Hosapete and the same is rejected. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner's family and the complainant's family with regard to cart way and therefore to take revenge, the complainant has filed a false complaint against the accused persons. It is his further submission that no such incident has taken place and it has been concocted and created by the complainant. It is his further submission that accused Nos.2 to 4 have been granted anticipatory bail by the District and Sessions Court and therefore on the ground of parity, petitioner-accused No.1 is also entitled for bail. With this he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that the case is under investigation stage and the statement of the victim girl is yet to be recorded under Section 164 of CR.P.C. It is his further submission that investigation is still pending and if the petitioner-accused No.1 is granted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the FIR, Complaint and remand application dated 06.07.2020. In the complaint, it is averred that petitioner-accused No.1 used to talk freely with the victim girl and for that the complainant and his wife have objected and advised him not to do so and also told the same to the family members of the petitioneraccused No.1. The victim girl is aged 21 years, even though there is a allegation of kidnap of the victim girl. There is no allegation of any sexual assault by the petitioner-accused No.1. What the victim girl stated is not forthcoming in the remand application dated 06.07.2020. The petitioner has been arrested on 06.07.2020 and from that date he is in judicial custody. The offence alleged is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 7. There is no allegation of any sexual assault by the petitioner-accused No.1. What the victim girl stated is not forthcoming in the remand application dated 06.07.2020. The petitioner has been arrested on 06.07.2020 and from that date he is in judicial custody. The offence alleged is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 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 Vs. 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. 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 the investigation is still in progress and no grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused No.1 is necessary. The petitioneraccused No.1 is residing in the address shown in the cause title and it is not disputed. The petitioner-accused No.1 has no criminal antecedents. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner-accused No.1 is likely to cause threat to the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing some stringent conditions. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there are valid grounds for grant of bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the following. ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.1 shall be released on bail in Crime No.154/2020 of Kudligi Police Station, subject to the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. In view of the Covid-19 petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, jurisdictional court is permitted to extend the time for furnishing surety. ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial/Sessions Court without prior permission till disposal of the Case.