ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, requesting for grant of bail having been arrested in Crime No. 128 of 2009 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under: One Sri Siddiq Pasha-C.W. 1, a resident of Jagajeevan Ram Nagar, Bangalore, is the brother of the deceased Muzmil Pasha, aged about 24 years and the complainant is doing business by installing STD booth near Jamia Maszid. On the date of the incident i.e., 9~3-2009 at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased Muzmil Pasha had gone to Nelamangala to purchase scrap items. At about 1.00 p.m. he returned back and told the complainant that while purchasing the scrap items, there was a quarrel between him and the petitioner and the other accused and thereby he was not able to purchase the scrap items. At about 3.00 p.m. on that day when the deceased was proceeding on the scooter near Santosh Tent on the main road, the petitioner and his friends i.e., accused 2 and .3 were standing and all the 3 accused including the petitioner caused wrongful restrain and at once accused I-petitioner is said to have assaulted the deceased with the knife stating that he is challenging him in the business and thereby caused injuries on the left eye, left side chest and other parts of the body, whereas accused 2 and 3 also assaulted the injured with the longs. When the complainant went to rescue of his brother i.e., the deceased, accused 2 and 3 also caused injuries on the complainant by assaulting with the longs and made an attempt to cause his death as well. There was severe bleeding from the injuries caused to the deceased and also the complainant and his friends lifted the injured to the hospital. By the time the deceased was taken to the hospital, he was declared dead. It is under these circumstances that the brother of the deceased has lodged the complaint against the accused and the petitioner for the above said offences. 3. By the time the deceased was taken to the hospital, he was declared dead. It is under these circumstances that the brother of the deceased has lodged the complaint against the accused and the petitioner for the above said offences. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is innocent and has not committed any offence and that the other 2 accused i.e., accused 2 and 3 have been granted bail and there are similar set of allegations and participation alleged even as against the petitioner. It is also his contention that as the other accused joined in the assault with him were granted the bail and in parity, he is also entitled for the bail as sought for. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no material against the petitioner for the offence alleged and that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions for the release on bail and that he would attend the investigation or the Court whenever required. On these grounds, he has sought for bail. 5. The learned Government Pleader has orally objected the application and has made a submission on the available investigation papers including the post-mortem report of the deceased. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 7. The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the petitioner is entitled, to the bail as sought for? 8. So far as the material placed on record is concerned, it is relevant to note that apart from the com13lainant, 2 other witnesses i.e., C.Ws. 4 and 5 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. The incident took place in the day light at 3.00 p.m. on 9-3-2009. The complainant, who is the brother of the deceased has made a specific allegation in the complaint that around 3.00 p.m. on that day when the deceased was proceeding on his scooter, near Santosh Tent accused 1 and 2 who were standing by the side of the road caused wrongful restraint and made the deceased to stop at the place and at once it is the petitioner who caused the assault with the knife on the injured i.e., the deceased. The complaint reveals that the assault was on the vital organs of the deceased i.e., on the eyes, the chest and other parts of the body. 9. The complaint reveals that the assault was on the vital organs of the deceased i.e., on the eyes, the chest and other parts of the body. 9. It is no-doubt true that there is an allegation that even accused 2 and 3 caused assault with the long on the injured brother of the complainant and it is thereafter that the other 2 accused caused the assault on the complainant himself with the long. 10. Now as could be seen from the post-mortem report, which has been made available, it reveals that the deceased had sustained many injuries and injury 3 reveals that the weapon after cutting the skin, has cut intercostal muscle of fifth and sixth intercostal space and sixth rib, where it measures 7.5 cms. x 0.5 cms, and has entered pleural cavity and shows two independent penetrations, one on the pericardium, where it has further penetrated the areterial wall of the right ventricle measuring 3 cms. x 0.25 cms. x ventricular cavity deep the lower end is sharp and upper end is blunt. Another penetration where the weapon is directed upwards to the inner surface of upper lobe, and has made two separate cuts on the long measuring 4 cms. x 0.5 cms x 1 cm. lung tissue deep and 4.5 cms. x 0.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. lung tissue deep. Blood extravasation is seen around the tract. The weapon is directed inwards, upwards and to the right far a total dept ranging from 60 cms. to 9 cms. and it is opined by the doctor that the death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. So, as could be seen from the post-mortem report and the allegations made in the complaint, it is accused 1/petitioner who caused the assault with the knife on the chest and it is that injury which has caused the death of the deceased. 11. It may be that accused 2 and 3 also caused the assault with the long, but the said injuries were not on the chest and in the circumstances, the mere fact that accused 2 and 3 are granted bail does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Further more, apart from the statement of the complainant, C.Ws. 4 and 5 are the eye-witness who have spoken to the part played by the 1st accused/petitioner and also the other accused. Further more, apart from the statement of the complainant, C.Ws. 4 and 5 are the eye-witness who have spoken to the part played by the 1st accused/petitioner and also the other accused. So, taking into consideration the records produced, there is prima facie material against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Furthermore, it is relevant to note that the quarrel ensued between the deceased and the 1st accused/petitioner at the first instance and it is thereafter that the petitioner and the other accused came at the spot while the deceased was proceeding on the road and gave threat and then caused assault with the knife and longs. 12. So, taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, the possibility of the petitioner interfering with the witness cannot be overruled. I do not think that in these circumstances, the petitioner could be granted the bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the bail as the part played by the other accused are different and the death of the deceased is due to the assault prima facie by the petitioner himself. In the circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petitioner is dismissed.