JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused 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.240/2019 of Yamakanamaradi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the PSI of Yamakanamaradi Police Station has filed a complaint on 21.11.2019 stating that he received one petition written by unknown person from CPI, Hukkeri and after verifying the said complaint, it revealed that on 23.08.2019, the present petitioner assaulted his brother-Kadappa and murdered him and suppressed the genuine facts with an intention to escape from the legal clutches and burnt the dead body with the help of two persons by name Sanju Patil and Mallappa Gijawani by giving false statement to the village people that Kadappa died due to fall and so doing he tried to escape from the legal clutches. The said letter has been registered in Petition No.89/2019. The PSI secured the said person on 26.11.2019 and enquired about the matter, at that time, the petitioner has told that they are three brothers and Kadappa is elder to him and he is in the habit of consuming alcohol and he is unmarried and is wandering here and there and asking money from him for his habit and giving trouble to the petitioner. On 23.08.2019 at about 7.30 pm once again, Kadappa came to the house and demanded money. At that time, the petitioner told him that he is not having money with him and told him not to trouble but Kadappa tried to assault the petitioner and so in an angry mood, the petitioner assaulted Kadappa with hand and pushed him and due to this, he fell on the ground and died. The petitioner, thereafter, made a plan and suppressed the genuine thing and told that his brother died due to fall after consuming liquor and sent a message to his mother also. The village people believing his words arranged for funeral and participated in funeral function and burnt the dead body. The complainant visited the village and asked the people to lodge a complaint against the petitioner but nobody came forward to file a compliant against the petitioner. The village people believing his words arranged for funeral and participated in funeral function and burnt the dead body. The complainant visited the village and asked the people to lodge a complaint against the petitioner but nobody came forward to file a compliant against the petitioner. Therefore, he filed a complaint on behalf of the State. The said complaint has been registered in Yamakanamaradi Police Station Crime No. 240/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The petitioner filed bail application in C.Crl.Misc. No.291/2020 and it came to be rejected by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikodi by order dated 17.07.2020. 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 date of offence is 23.08.2019 and the complaint has been filed on 26.11.2019 and there is delay of more than 3 months in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is his further submission that no villager has come forward to file a complaint against the petitioner and it shows that the petitioner is not involved in the case. It is his further submission that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is his further submission that investigation is over and 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 the statements of CWs.5 to 7 have been recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have stated that the petitioner/accused had told them that his brotherdeceased in the state of intoxication fell down and sustained injuries and died and believing his words they cremated the dead body by burning. It is his further submission that the deceased was last seen together with the petitioner/accused and the same has been stated by CWs.5 to 7 in their statements. It is his further submission that the petitioner not only committed the murder but also made disappearance of evidence by burning the dead body. It is his further submission that the deceased was last seen together with the petitioner/accused and the same has been stated by CWs.5 to 7 in their statements. It is his further submission that the petitioner not only committed the murder but also made disappearance of evidence by burning the dead body. 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. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. CWs.5 to 7 in their statements have stated that the deceased was addicted to alcohol and he used to consume alcohol every day and used to quarrel with his brother-the petitioner. Since dead body of Kadappa is burnt, it is not possible to ascertain the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. Therefore, the cause of death of the deceased has to be ascertained in a full fledged trial. 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 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 shall be released on bail in Crime No.240/2019 of Yamakanamaradi Police Station subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner/accused 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. 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 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner/accused shall attend the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.