JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by accused No.4 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.38/2020 of Old Hubli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 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 Gangavva w/o Chandru Dundi gave complaint on 17.04.2020 stating that her daughter Karemma has been given in marriage to accused No.1-Mallikarjun 12 years ago and after marriage, Karemma was residing with her husband-accused No.1 and in-laws/accused Nos.2 and 3, brother-in-law/accused No.4 and sister-inlaw/ accused No.5. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with a woman and the said fact was disclosed by Karemma to the complainant. It is further alleged that on 16.04.2020 at about 9.30 pm one Devendra informed the complainant and again one Parshuram has called to said Devendra that Karemma husband, mother-in law, father-in-law and family members have set fire to Karemma and she suffered burn injures. It is further alleged that the complainant and her family members were proceeding to the house of accused No.1 and on the way they saw Karemma was taken in a TUM TUM vehicle and at that time, on seeing them, accused No.1 who was in the TUM TUM vehicle went away and the deceased told them that accused Nos.1 to 5 set fire to her and locked in a room and she suffered burn injuries. The said Karemma was admitted KIMS hospital and on 20.04.2020, Karemma succumbed to burn injuries. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.38/2020 of Old Hubli Police Station. Petitioner/accused No.4 was arrested on 17.04.2020. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet. Bail application filed by the petitioner in Crl.Misc. No.396/2020 came to be rejected by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. 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 conduct of the petitioner in going to KIMS hospital and in getting Karemma treated, itself goes to show that he is not involved in the case. 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 conduct of the petitioner in going to KIMS hospital and in getting Karemma treated, itself goes to show that he is not involved in the case. The said aspect has been stated by the complainant in her further statement on 01.06.2020. It is his further submission that CWs-16, 17 and 18 have stated in their statement that accused No.1 was standing outside the house wherein smoke was coming out. It is his further submission that accused No.1 and the deceased were residing in the 1st floor and accused No.4 and his wife are residing in the ground floor. It is his further submission that presence of accused No.4 was not stated by the said witnesses. It is his further submission that the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that accused Nos.1 to 5 on 16.04.2020 at 9.30 pm have set fire to Karemma and locked her in a room and subsequently, they told the people gathered that she herself has set fire and when she was getting treatment in KIMS she succumbed to the injuries. It is his further submission that there is prima facie case against the petitioner. It is 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 complainant in her further statement dated 01.06.2020 has stated that the petitioner/accused No.4 came on motorcycle to the KIMS hospital and made arrangement for medical treatment. The very conduct of the petitioner itself goes to show that he is not involved in the case as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the statement of CWs.7, 8, 10 and 11, the petitioner and his wife are staying separately in the ground floor and accused No.1 and the deceased were staying in the first floor. As per the statement of CWs.7, 8, 10 and 11, the petitioner and his wife are staying separately in the ground floor and accused No.1 and the deceased were staying in the first floor. CW.9-in her statement has stated that when she went there only accused No.1 was standing outside the room wherein smoke was coming out. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioner/accused No.4 is in judicial custody since 17.04.2020. 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. 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 completed 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. There 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. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.4 shall be released on bail in Crime No.38/2020 of Old Hubli Police Station subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner/accused No.4 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.4 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner/accused No.4 shall attend the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.