ORDER This application under S. 439, Cr. P.C. has been moved by the accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for his release on bail in case FIR No. 108/1999 dated 16-3-1999 under Ss. 302, 341, 323/34, IPC registered at Police Station, Kangra. It is claimed that the accused, who is presently in judicial custody, was arrested on 17-3-1999 along with his co-accused Kaushalya Devi and Bhagwan Dass alias Harnam Singh, both of whom have been released on bail. The accused is alleged to have given a blow on the head of one Gopal Dass with a Fatti thereby causing his death but the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the investigation record and the report submitted by the police which report has been placed on record. 3. Case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is that on 16-3-1999 at about 8-45 p.m. when Gopal Dass and his wife Sureshtha Devi were returning home from their cow-shed, accused persons namely, Kaushalya Devi, Harnam Singh alias Bhagwan Dass and Surinder Kumar-petitioner threatened Gopal Dass to do away with his life. He was caught hold of by Kaushalya Devi and Harnam Singh alias Bhagwan Dass and the present accused Surinder Kumar who was carrying a wooden Kari (Serua) gave a blow with said Kari on the head of said Gopal Dass who was removed to the hospital at Kangra from where he was referred to Zonal Hospital, Dharamsala on the morning of 17-3-1999 where he died in the evening on the same day. As per the medical opinion, the deceased died due to asphyxia and neurogenic shock caused by the head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A perusal of the record reveals that prima facie there is evidence to support the prosecution version. 4. As per the medical opinion, the deceased died due to asphyxia and neurogenic shock caused by the head injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A perusal of the record reveals that prima facie there is evidence to support the prosecution version. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that since the blow is alleged to have been given by a wooden Fatti from which it cannot be inferred that the accused intended or knew that he was likely to cause the death of the deceased or such bodily injury to him which could cause his death, and that the quarrel took place all of a sudden, therefore, this is not a case under S. 302, IPC. However, what emerges from the record is that the accused and his co-accused had stopped the deceased on the way, declared that he would be done to death, he was caught hold of by the two co-accused of the accused, who gave him the fatal blow. The blow was not given by a small wooden Fatti but in fact by a wooden Kari which is stated to be 3 in length, 4.5 cm. in width and 3 cm. in thickness. A wooden piece of this dimension cannot be termed as an ordinary Fatti but when used as a weapon of offence to cause hurt on a vital part of the body, is capable of causing fatal injuries. It cannot, therefore, be said at this stage that the accused is not involved in the commission of an offence of murder which entails extreme penalty of death. Thus, the accused-petitioner is accused of the commission of a very grave offence punishable with the severest punishment under the law. This factor must weigh in favour of refusal of the bail to the accused. 5. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the accused that two of the accused, namely, Kaushalya Devi and Bhagwan Dass alias Harnam Singh in the case have already been released on bail, therefore, the accused is also entitled for bail in view of the principle that once a co-accused is admitted to bail, the other accused must also be released on bail. 6. I do not find any merit and substance in this contention also. No doubt the aforesaid two accused have already been released on bail. 6. I do not find any merit and substance in this contention also. No doubt the aforesaid two accused have already been released on bail. Kaushalya Devi was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge and accused Harnam Singh alias Bhagwan Dass has been so released by this Court vide order dated 26-10-1999 passed in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 994/1999. However, the acts attributed to Kaushalya Devi, who is a woman as well, are not on the same footing as attributed to the present accused. Evidently, these must be the reasons which must have weighed with the Sessions Judge in granting bail to her. So far as accused Harnam Singh alias Bhagwan Dass who has been admitted to bail by this Court is concerned, he was released on bail because the State has failed to produce the records of the case for the perusal of the Court despite opportunity and, thus, by necessary implication, there was no opposition to the grant of bail. The other factor which weighed with this Court in releasing the said accused on bail is that the part attributed to him was at par with Kaushalya Devi who had been already released on bail and there was no material placed before the Court which could lead the Court to dismiss his application for bail. Now from the perusal of the record, it is quite clear and evident that the parts played by the accused already released on bail and the bail petitioner are not on the same footing. In fact, it is the accused-petitioner who was carrying the weapon of offence and who gave the fatal blow to the deceased. Thus, he cannot be treated at par with the other accused persons who have been released on bail. 7. Thus, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which it has been committed and the severity of punishment therefor, I do not find the accused-petitioner entitled for bail. 8. As a result, this application merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.