JUDGEMENT This is a petition for being enlarged on bail filed under Section 439 Cr. P. C., 1973. 2. The petitioner along with five others are now awaiting their trial before the Court of Session for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 302, 307, 326 and 504 of the I. P. C. The petitioner is the father of accused Rama, Shantaram and Ashok. The other two accused i. e. Shivram and Laxman are said to be the labourers of the petitioner. It appears that at about 15.30 hours on 12th July, 1979, there took place an incident of assault in a field. As a result of the assault, three persons died. The dispute arose when the field was being ploughed by Namdeo Baidekar. The deceased happened to be the brothers of the petitioner. Two earlier petitions for bail filed by the petitioner were rejected. The last one was rejected by the officiating District and Sessions Judge on 28th August, 1979. 3. Mr. A. Vaze, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has made the submission that there appear to be no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has been guilty of the alleged offence of murder on the basis of the materials placed on record, Mr. Dias, Government Advocate has strongly objected to the petitioner being enlarged on bail. He has submitted that apart from the gravity of the offences, the petitioner being the head of the family, the prosecution reasonably apprehends that he is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. So, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner should be granted bail. Section 439 has conferred on the High Court and the Court of Session power to grant bail to an accused person in any case when he is charged with a non-bailable offence. The Supreme Court has laid down in Jugjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253 , the following considerations which the High Court should take into account whilst dealing with the petition for bail in non-bailable cases. They are : (i) Nature and seriousness of the offence. (ii) The character of the witness. (iii) Circumstances peculiar to the accused. (iv) A reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured during the trial. They are : (i) Nature and seriousness of the offence. (ii) The character of the witness. (iii) Circumstances peculiar to the accused. (iv) A reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured during the trial. (v) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, (vi) The larger interest of the public or the State and (vii) Similar other considerations which arise when a Court is asked to admit accused to bail in a non-bailable offence. 5. In the F.I.R. lodged by one Harish-chandra there is undoubtedly no mention of the name of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner comes, in the dying declaration made by Shridar on 12th July, 1979 at 6.30 p. m. There he stated that he was assaulted by iron bar by Keshav Baidker (the petitioner) and his sons Rama, Ashok and Shantaram and one labourer and another labourer by name Laxman. The statement in the dying declaration further shows that they (the assailants) were looking for an opportunity to assault them since one year. Radha, the wife of Namdeo Baidker has not alleged that the petitioner assaulted. According to her she saw the petitioner standing by the side of a mango tree on the land in which the incident took place. She undoubtedly is an eyewitness to the assault on her husband and others. Shridar, whose dying declaration was recorded somehow survived and has been again examined by the police. There, he has stated that he saw the petitioner running from his house towards the field with a danda in his hand. Thinking that there might be some trouble, he also went running towards the field. When he reached the land, he saw Namdeo and Pundalik lying in the field. He also saw the petitioner and his three sons Shantaram, Rama and Ashok in the field near the bodies of Namdeo and Pundalik. It is true that when he had proceeded to depict the incident of assault on him he has not implicated the petitioner but on the perusal of his statements and that of Radha no doubt is left that the petitioner was present armed with a danda at the place of the incident. Prima facia, there is nothing to disbelieve his presence at the place of occurrence. Prima facia, there is nothing to disbelieve his presence at the place of occurrence. It is on account of the aforesaid reason the learned Sessions Judge seems to be of the opinion that there is prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner has admitted the offence of murder. 6. As already indicated above, the incident that took place resulted in the death of three persons who were brothers of the petitioner and the dispute was in connection with possession of certain land. It is further brought out on record that the petitioner and his sons were on the look out for an opportunity to assault the deceased and others. Although, police statements placed on record do not show participation of the petitioner in the assault, there is no doubt that he came to the spot armed with a danda and perhaps directed the entire operation. It is argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner is a businessman and man of influence and if he is left off on bail the prosecution reasonably apprehends that he would tamper with the little evidence that the prosecution has been able to lay its hand on. Though, there may not be any possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice, the other considerations are undoubtedly against him. In other words, the petitioner in my opinion has not made out a special case for his release on bail pending trial. I would accordingly dismiss his petition for the time being, that is to say till the recording of the prosecution evidence is completed. Thereafter he is at liberty to move the Court of Sessions Judge for bail if he so desires. Petition dismissed.