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.181/2019 of Kudligi Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Babayya lodged a complaint on 21.11.2019 alleging that complainant is working as a Tractor Driver and residing along with his father deceased Hanumanthappa and mother Huligemma and his wife. The Parents of the complainant are agriculturist and they have got 4 acres of agriculture land. They had grown maize crop in the said land. The complainant had sold the maize crop to one Ganganna resident of Badri village for Rs.20,000/- and he has received the said amount on 20.11.2019 at 3 p.m. and he had kept the said amount in his house in Godrej lock and had gone to tractor work to the stone quarry. The father of the complainant called him on mobile and asked him to give said money. Thereafter, he immediately returned back to his house and asked his father to return back the money and in this regard there was quarrel between them, in spite of it, his father took away the said amount and went away. Accused No.1 who is the neighbor came to know about the said quarrel. When the complainant returned back to the house at 9 p.m. and he came to know through his wife and mother that his father has gone to paddy field at 8 p.m. along with money in his pocket in order to watch the paddy filed. On 21.11.2019 at 6 a.m. in the morning, one Basappa who is the adjacent land owner came and informed him that his father was crying during the night and asked him whether his father was keeping well or not. Immediately, the complainant and his father-in-law Channappa went to the land and witnessed that his father had sustained head and nose injury and there was bleeding form the ear. Immediately complainant and his father-in-law took him on the motor cycle to Kudligi Hospital for treatment and one Siddesh, who is the cousin brother also accompanied in another motorcycle. The complainant repeatedly asked his father who has assaulted him and his father said to have told that it was Venkatesh i.e accused No.1. Immediately complainant and his father-in-law took him on the motor cycle to Kudligi Hospital for treatment and one Siddesh, who is the cousin brother also accompanied in another motorcycle. The complainant repeatedly asked his father who has assaulted him and his father said to have told that it was Venkatesh i.e accused No.1. When the complainant asked his father, whether it was neighbor Venkatesh, who is the son of Anjinamma, for which his father nodded his head. Thereafter, they took his father to Government Hospital, Kudligi. Police came to the hospital for enquiry, at that time, his father was unconscious and not able to speak. Complainant told the Police that he will later come to the Police station. The complainant took his father to VIMS Hosptial, Ballari for treatment and when they were on the way to Ballari his father succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, Police have registered the case in Crime No.11/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Petitioner-accused No.1 has been arrested and based on voluntary statement of accused No.1, accused Nos.2 and 3 are also arrested on 22.01.2019. Bail application filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 was allowed and bail application filed by Petitioner-accused No.1 was rejected by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari. Hence, 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 the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. It is his further submission that the oral dying declaration made before the CW.1, CW.15 and CW.16 cannot be believed since injured has sustained severe injuries on his head and neck and he was unconscious when he was taken to hospital. It is his further submission that CW.19 and 25 have last seen accused Nos.1 to 3 going towards land of deceased. Accused Nos.2 and 3 who are similarly placed with that of accused No.1, are on bail. On the ground of parity also, petitioner-accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail. It is his further submission that as already charge sheet has been filed, petitioner-accused No.1 is no more required for custodial interrogation. With this he prays to allow the petition. 5. On the ground of parity also, petitioner-accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail. It is his further submission that as already charge sheet has been filed, petitioner-accused No.1 is no more required for custodial interrogation. With this he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that oral dying declaration made before CW.1, 15 and 16 against accused No.1. It is her further submission that accused No.1 has seen the quarrel between deceased and the complainant regarding the deceased taking away money along with him to the field. It is her further submission that money has been recovered from accused Nos.1 and 2. It is her further submission that CWs.19 and 25 have seen accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 going towards the land of the deceased. It is her further submission that charge sheet material prima facie shows the case against petitioneraccused No.1. It is her further submission that if the petitioner- accused No.1 is granted with bail he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and he may flee from justice. With these, she prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. As per accusations made in the charge sheet, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have assaulted the deceased with stone and caused him severe injuries. As per oral dying declaration made before CW.1, 15 and 16 is against only accused No.1. As per the postmortem report, the deceased had died due to injury to vital organ brain leading to shock and hemorrhage by blunt object. Whether deceased was in a condition to speak when he was taken by the complainant and others to hospital is a matter of trial. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. 7. Whether deceased was in a condition to speak when he was taken by the complainant and others to hospital is a matter of trial. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. 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. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 9. In the present case the investigation is completed. 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 completed. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused No.1 is necessary. The petitioner-accused No.1 is residing in the address shown in cause title is not in dispute. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner-accused No.1. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the 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 said 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.181/2019 of Kudligi Police Station, subject to the following conditions. i) 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-2019 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 attend the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case registered against him.