JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.01/2019 of Marihal Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 452, 302, 506, 109, 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST POA, Act 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Basappa Irappa Myaklyagol has filed complaint stating that his son belongs to SC/ST and the accused persons belong to the other caste. That on 01.01.2019 his son deceased Nagendra after completion of mason work of the building which belongs to Mustaffa Gousa Pendari at about 6.30 p.m. at that time, the accused person along with others to commit the murder of the said Nagendra, started quarrelling with him and abused in filthy language taking the name of caste i.e. byadra sulemagana and with the help of sword and jambe assaulted Nagendra and committed his murder. Petitioner-accused No.3 came to be arrested on 13.01.2019. The petitioner has filed bail application in Crl.Misc.No.1110/2020 and it came to be rejected by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi by order dated 20.08.2020. Hence, petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 that the name of the petitioneraccused No.3 is not mentioned in FIR and Complaint. It is his further submission that in the further statement of the complainant and in the statement of the eyewitness Sambhaji Rudrappa Parasannavar, the presence and overt act of the petitioner has been stated and it is an improvement made by the prosecution to implicate the petitioner. It is further submission that in the further statement of the complainant and the eyewitness- Sambhaji, specific overt act of the petitioner has not been stated. It is his further submission that accused Nos.4 to 7 have been granted bail by this Court and therefore on the ground of parity, the petitioner-accused No.3 is also entitled for bail. It is his further submission that charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is not required for any further custodial interrogation. It his further submission that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners and that he is the only earning member of the family. It is his further submission that charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is not required for any further custodial interrogation. It his further submission that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners and that he is the only earning member of the family. With this he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that the presence and overt act of the petitioner has been stated by the complainant in his further statement and eyewitness5 Sambhaji in his statement. It is her further submission that as per the postmortem report, the deceased Nagendra has sustained 16 injuries and the FSL report reveal that there are blood stains on item No.16-Jambe which the petitioner is stated to have used for assaulting the deceased and the said blood stains is of human having AB group. It is her further submission that if the petitioneraccused No.3 is granted with 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-accused No.3 and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. Name of the petitioner/accused No.3 has not been stated in the complaint/FIR. The name of the petitioner has been stated by the complainant in his further statement recorded on 02.01.2019. The statement of the eyewitness-Sambhaji Rudrappa Parasannavar has been recorded on 02.01.2019. In the further statement of the complainant and the statement of the eyewitness, no specific overt act of the petitioner has been stated. It is only stated that all the accused i.e., accused Nos.1 to 4 have assaulted with talwar, jambe etc. 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. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.01.2019. 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. 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.3 shall be released on bail in Crime No.1/2019 of Marihal Police Station subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish sureties within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing sureties. ii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court/Sessions court without prior permission till disposal of the case.