JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel appearing for the first informant. Perused the order impugned, challan papers and the statements of the eyewitnesses namely PW-2 Aanchi Devi and PW-4 Godharam, who said to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence. 2. Both these witnesses have stated that the petitioner was armed with Lathi and inflicted injury to the deceased. PW-4 Godharam has categorically stated that Durga Ram, the present petitioner was armed with Lathi and inflicted injury on the shoulder. The injuries prima facie corroborates from the medical evidence. It is reported that the trial is also at the fag end. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated co-accused Hawa Singh has been released on bail. 4. From the perusal of the record, it appears that almost all the witnesses have stated that Hawa Singh was not armed with anything and said to have caused fist blows, which prima facie do not appears from the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem. 5. Therefore, in my view, the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from that of co-accused Hawa Singh. 6. In this view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to release the petitioner on bail. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is, therefore dismissed.Bali application dismissed. *******