SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) MR. Saiyed, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has raised four contentions in this application, viz. , (1) that it is a pure case of circumstantial evidence; (ii) that the injured witness Jabbar himself had refused to identify the accused in a test identification parade; (iii) that the FIR does not disclose the names of the accused nor the description of the accused; and (iv) that the other assailants, viz. , the driver of Hero Honda and the scooterist are not arrested by the Police. ( 2 ) I would like to take up the last contention first when he had submitted that the driver of Hero Honda and the scooters, who had also belaboured the deceased alongwith the present petitioners and therefore the deceased died, are not arrested, would itself be a ground for not releasing the accused. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Saiyed fails and is rejected. ( 3 ) THE second contention regarding the circumstantial evidence that the names of the accused are not disclosed in the FIR, nor is the description of the accuse given in the FIR. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the statements of the various witnesses has come to the conclusion that there is prima facie material against the accused. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission raised by Mr. Saiyed that no description nor the description of the accused were given in the FIR. In fact, there is statement of Amin Haji Adamji, who had identified all the three accused persons who were quarrelling with the deceased. The learned Judge was, therefore, right in coming to a conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the petitioneraccused. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge. ( 4 ) THE third ground raised by Mr. Saiyed is that only injured witness jabbar who himself refused to identify the accused in a test identification parade and, therefore, the accused should be released on bail, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that this point was not specifically raised before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. However, Mr. Saiyed has made a statement in the application that on instructions from the Advocate who appeared before the lower Court though this point was specifically argued, the learned Additional sessions Judge has not specifically dealt with. Sessions Judge. However, Mr. Saiyed has made a statement in the application that on instructions from the Advocate who appeared before the lower Court though this point was specifically argued, the learned Additional sessions Judge has not specifically dealt with. Now, even assuming for the sake of argument that this point was urged before the learned Additional sessions Judge, in my opinion, this fact itself shows that if the petitioners are released on bail, then they are likely to temper with the evidence, because, the injured witness himself was beaten alongwith the deceased, but still in the test identification parade, he refused to identify the accused. ( 5 ) IT is true that this is a case of circumstantial evidence but there is a prima facie material against the petitioners to hold that there is a prima facie case against them and, therefore, this Court cannot release the petitioners on bail. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, I do not see any merit in any of the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Saiyed. This application is, therefore, rejected. ( 7 ) AFTER I have passed this order, Mr. Saiyed requested to withdraw this application. Permission is granted. This application, therefore, stands rejected as withdrawn. Application rejected .