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.74/2019 of Chikkodi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) (now pending on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi). 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Yalagouda Mahadev Patil has lodged a complaint that his elder brother-Jyothigouda Patil-deceased has separated from them living with his wife and children separately and he was eking his livelihood by driving the tractor and he was addicted to alcohol and was drinking alcohol regularly. It is further alleged that on 14.06.2019 at about 7.00 am, the deceased had gone outside on his motorcycle and he did not come back even on that night. On 15.06.2019, Jyothigouda has called another brother namely Siddagouda and told that he has lost the key of motorcycle and the same has been parked at Government hospital, Chikodi. As such Siddagouda had been to Chikodi and he did not find the deceased at the spot and he took back the motorcycle. As the deceased has not returned to the village, the complainant and others have searched in and around places and they could not get the deceased. It is alleged that on 16.06.2019 at about 8.00 am the complainant and others have come to Chikodi in search of the deceased and on hearing the people that one dead body was lying at Umarani bridge and at about 10.00 am when they have reached Umarani bridge, they found that the dead body was of his brother Jyothigouda and found that unknown persons have committed the murder of his brother for unknown reasons. The said complaint has been registered in Crime No.74/2019 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against unknown persons. It is alleged that the deceased was found along with the petitioner on the basis of the CC TV footage of Raja Wines, Chikodi and therefore, the petitioner came to be arrested on 05.07.2019 and he was interrogated and alleged to have confessed the commission of offence. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed charge sheet. It is alleged that the deceased was found along with the petitioner on the basis of the CC TV footage of Raja Wines, Chikodi and therefore, the petitioner came to be arrested on 05.07.2019 and he was interrogated and alleged to have confessed the commission of offence. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed charge sheet. The petitioner/accused filed bail application in Crl.Misc.683/2020 and the same came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court. 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 deceased went out of the house on 14.06.2019 and his dead body was found on 17.06.2019 and the complaint came to be filed by the brother of the deceased against unknown persons. It is his further submission that on the basis of the voluntary statement of the petitioner/accused, the blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered from the house of the accused after 20 days of the incident. 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 the motive for murder is that the deceased had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from the petitioner/accused and it is very weak motive. It is his further submission that the CC TV footage video has been down loaded in the pen drive and it was given to the Investigation Officer by the Raja Wines shop Manager and the said hard disk of the CC TV footage has not been collected and sent for examination. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody since 05.07.2019 and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on last seen theory and the voluntary statement of the petitioner/accused and recovery of blood stained clothes of the petitioner at his instance. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on last seen theory and the voluntary statement of the petitioner/accused and recovery of blood stained clothes of the petitioner at his instance. It is her further submission that the CC TV footage video has been handed over by the Manager of the Raja Wine Shop in a pen drive to the Investigating Officer and it was also taken in CD. It is her further submission that the petitioner has shown the spot and that the blood stained clothes of the petitioner have been recovered at his instance from his house. It is her further submission that if the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, she 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. Brother of the deceased has filed the complaint against unknown persons. The petitioner/accused has been implicated only on the basis that he was last seen with the deceased near Raja Wine shop and bus stand on the basis of the CC TV footage recorded in the CC camera installed in Raja Wine Shop. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Whether the petitioner has committed the offences alleged, is a matter of 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/accused. 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 shall be released on bail in Crime No.74/2019 of Chikodi Police Station (now pending on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi) 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. 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.