Judgment : This petition is filed by the petitioner u/S. 401 r/w S. 439, Cr.P.C. praying to grant him bail in Crime No. 135/1990 of Gowribidanur Police Station in Kolar District. The petitioner had filed a similar petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kolar, and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides dismissed that petition. Thereafter this petition is filed by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case. 2. One Hanumantharayappa gave a complaint to the police and on the basis of that complaint the police registered a case in Crime No. 135/1990 for the offence punishable u/S. 302 r/w S. 34, IPC. 3. Thefacts of the prosecution case are as follows : The petitioner is the son of accused No. 2 Narasimhappa and accused No. 3 Lakshmidevamma is the wife of the petitioner. They are all agriculturists. 3-1. On 27-6-1990 at about 9-30 a.m., one Ramanjanappa was found cutting Eastern bund on the side of the land of the 1st accused/petitioner which was put to a water canal in between the land of the petitioner and one Gangappa. On seeing this the petitioner, 2nd accused Narasimhappa and the 3rd accused, Lakshmidevamma came and objected for the cutting of the said bund. At that time one Hanumanarayappa son of Avalappa, an adjoining land owner, came there and asked them as to why they are quarrelling, then accused No. 3 Lakshmidevamma threw chilly powder into the eyes of the said Hanumantharayappa and then 2nd accused took out button knife and stabbed Hanumantharayappa on the left side of his chest and Hanumantharappa fell on the ground. On seeing this another adjoining land owner Jayaramappa and his father Mudduramappa came there and Jayaramappa carried the injured Hanumantharayappa on his shoulder with an intention to take in to the hospital. Then the 3rd accused threw chilly powder into the eyes of Jayaramappa and the 2nd accused assaulted him with clubs on his head and the petitioner assaulted Jayaramappa twice on the left portion of his chest as a result of which he fell down. On seeing this the father of Jayaramappa, Mudduramappa came to save his son. Then the 3rd accused threw chilly powder into the eyes of Jayaramappa and the 2nd accused assaulted him with clubs on his head and the petitioner assaulted Jayaramappa twice on the left portion of his chest as a result of which he fell down. On seeing this the father of Jayaramappa, Mudduramappa came to save his son. Then the 3rd accused threw chilly powder on his face and the petitioner stabbed him with the same knife as a result of which he fell down and all the three persons died at the spot. Then the petitioner and the other accused ran away from the spot. 3-2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable u/S. 302 r/w S. 34, IPC, either with death or imprisonment for life. The investigation is completed and according to the investigation there are six eye witnesses to connect the petitioner for the offence alleged against him. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR does not disclose any commission of the offence by the petitioner. There is no mention of any motive in the FIR. 5. I have gone through the contents of the FIR in this case. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the FIR does not disclose any commission of the offence is far-fetched and unacceptable in view of the fact that FIR discloses the names of three accused persons and the specific acts on the part of each accused. In view of the averments in the FIR is difficult to hold that the FIR does not make out any case against the petitioner. 6. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments made in the FIR do not attract the provisions of S. 302, IPC. FIR is an encyclopaedia of the prosecution case. It is not necessary and not expected of a complainant to quote the ingredients of a Section in verbatim in the complaint. In this particular case the word used in the complaint is That word itself is enough to attract S. 302 of IPC to this case. So far as motive is concerned the motive had developed at the spot. In view of the presence of eye witnesses the role of the motive will not be so important as it will be a case based on circumstantial evidence. 7. So far as motive is concerned the motive had developed at the spot. In view of the presence of eye witnesses the role of the motive will not be so important as it will be a case based on circumstantial evidence. 7. The complainant himself is an eye witness and besides him there are three witnesses whose statements go to disclose that it is the petitioner who factually stabbed on the chest of three persons with his button Knife. 1 he learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view depth of the injuries found on the chest of the deceased persons and the length of the blade the knife used, the statements of these witnesses will have to be rejected. The Court, while dealing with the application, is not expected to go into the minute documentation of the prosecution case at this stage. Therefore this argument is also not acceptable in view of fact that this point has to be decided after the prosecution let in evidence in the case. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that bail is the rule and jail is an exception and no citizen should be deprived of his liberty unnecessarily. No doubt a person cannot be deprived of his liberty granted to him by the Constitution of our country unless there are justifiable reasons to do so. But when a person is involved in a heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Court is not expected to be unduly influenced by the concept of liberty, disregarding the facts of the case. The words of the Supreme Court in the ruling reported in AIR 1987 SC 1613 : (1987 Cri LJ 1872) (Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan) are the proper reply to the argument of the learned counsel based on the concept of liberty of a citizen. Those words are as follows (Para 6). "No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by court, nontheless when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder and his successive bail applications are rejected on merits there being a prima facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the Court. Those words are as follows (Para 6). "No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by court, nontheless when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder and his successive bail applications are rejected on merits there being a prima facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the Court. Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that the parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. Learned Judge was unduly influenced by the concept of liberty, disregarding the facts of the case". 9. Further, in a decision of this Court in ILR 1990 Kant 3846 (M. P. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka). It has been held as follows : "It is well settled by the law laid down by the Supreme Court that personal liberty deprived when bail is refused is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognised under Art. 21, that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust and confidence to be exercised, not casually or cursorily but judicially, with great care and circumspection in accordance with the established principles of justice displaying a lively and serious concern of the consequences of the refusal of bail to the individual concerned and the community. The significance and sweep of Art. 21 of the Constitution make the deprivation of liberty would be permissible only when the law authorising and sanctioning it is reasonable, even-handed, and geared to the obtainment and accomplishment of the good of the community. Deprivation of liberty by refusing to grant bail is not as a measure of punishment or for punitive purposes, but for the interests of justice to the individual concerned and to the society affected." 10. No doubt liberty is one of the most precious possession of a citizen. But there is distinction between liberty and licence. The true liberty is always hedged on all sides with reasonable restrictions to allow fellow citizens also to live and prosper in society. No doubt liberty is one of the most precious possession of a citizen. But there is distinction between liberty and licence. The true liberty is always hedged on all sides with reasonable restrictions to allow fellow citizens also to live and prosper in society. When there are serious allegations supported by sufficient material to raise a prima facie case against a citizen for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, bail cannot be granted to such an accused merely on the concept of liberty. The accused person will not be granted bail in a case in which he is accused of heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless there are justifiable grounds to grant bail to him. 11. In this case the prosecution has alleged that the petitioner has caused the death of three persons who had come to intervene in the quarrel. There are witnesses who have given their statements to the police for having witnessed the murder of three persons at the hands of this petitioner. Therefore in view of the material collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner it will have to be held that there is a very strong prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 12. Looking to the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the fact that the witnesses are said to be his relatives there is every possibility of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses in case he is released on bail. 13. Hence I am of the view that it will not be in the interest of justice, to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence I make the following order. The petition is dismissed. Application dismissed.