JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.163/2020 of Honnavar Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 & 364A R/W Section 149 OF IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Kumari. Mangala D/o Ishwar Gouda has filed complaint on 07.08.2020 alleging that she was working as teacher in Jnanajyoti Private School in Chikkati village, Taluk Athani, District Belagavi and accused No.1 is the owner of the said school. Both the complainant and accused No.1 fall in love and decided to marry. Accordingly, engagement was performed. For Some reason the complainant refused to marry accused No.1. On account of it and as she failed to return the amount given by the accused No.1, the accused become furious and he used to call her and demanding the amount. On 07.08.2020 at about 7.15 p.m. he came to Kankod cross along with other accused persons in car No.KA-05/MD-2835 and another car wrongfully restrained the complainant and her brother while going on motorcycle and forcibly they kidnapped her brother in car. The complainant made hue and cry and villagers came and stopped one car and rescued complainant's brother and caught hold the accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.1 and other accused ran away from the spot in another car. Complainant went to Honnavar Police Station and lodged a complaint and the same came to be registered in Crime No.163/2020 of Honnavar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 364A r/w Section 149.IPC. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were arrested on 08.08.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. Petitioners approached Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar seeking bail and the same came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionersaccused Nos.2 to 4 and learned HCGP for respondent- State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 that there is no demand for any money from any person. Therefore, the provision punishable under Section 364A is not attracted. It is his further submission that brother of the complainant who is alleged to have been kidnapped has been rescued. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 that there is no demand for any money from any person. Therefore, the provision punishable under Section 364A is not attracted. It is his further submission that brother of the complainant who is alleged to have been kidnapped has been rescued. Even though, accused Nos.2 and 3 were secured on the same day by the villagers, the date of arrest is shown as 08.08.2020 in remand application. There is a money transaction between accused No.1 and complainant and therefore, a false complaint came to be filed. It is his further submission that one Basappa S/o Shivagonda Payagon lodged a private complaint in P.C.No.44/2020 against the accused No.1, complainant and her brother regarding cheating made by them. It is his further submission that petitioners went to get their amount form accused No.1 and complainant. Therefore, a false complaint came to be filed against them. With this he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that investigation is still in progress and charge sheet is yet to be filed. It is her further submission that petitionersaccused Nos.2 to 4 have been kidnapped complainant's brother. It is her further submission that petitioners are required for custodial interrogation as investigation is in progress. If petitioners-accused No.2 to 4 are released on bail, they will hamper investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and they 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 and learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the FIR, Complaint, remand application and copy of private complaint. On perusal of the copy of the private complaint No.44/2020 filed by Basappa against petitioner-accused No.1, complainant and complainant's brother reveal that they were running scheme by collecting a sum of Rs.35,000/- from public on the assurance that after three months they will give Hero Honda Motorcycle to the members. It is alleged in the said private complaint that accused No.1, complainant and her brother have cheated them. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that accused Nos.2 to 4 who are also members of such scheme came to recover their money from the accused No.1, complainant and her brother and therefore a false complaint is filed against them. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that accused Nos.2 to 4 who are also members of such scheme came to recover their money from the accused No.1, complainant and her brother and therefore a false complaint is filed against them. Even though petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 have been secured on the same date i.e. on 07.08.2020 they have shown to be arrested on 08.08.2020. The person who has been kidnapped complainant's brother has been rescued by the public and therefore, the offence under Section 364A is not attracted as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that there is a money transaction between accused No.1, complainant and her brother. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence alleged against them can only be ascertained after investigation and 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 reported 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. 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 in progress. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioners9 accused Nos.2 to 4 is necessary. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are residing in the address shown in cause title is not in dispute. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the accused are 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 bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the following. ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 shall be released on bail in Crime No.163/2020 of Honnavar Police Station, subject to the following conditions. i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (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 circumstance arises, jurisdictional Court is at liberty to extend the time for furnishing surety. ii) The petitioners shall not hamper the investigation and indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called for and co-operate in the investigation.