JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.5/2013, registered for offences punishable under sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC. As per final report dated 30.03.2013, there were long standing civil disputes between petitioner and deceased Vasudeva Adiga. The petitioner and deceased Vasudeva Adiga hail from the same village called Kokkanbailu, Vandaru Village, Udupi Taluk. The civil litigations had ended in favour of deceased Vasudeva Adiga. Therefore, petitioner had developed grudge against deceased Vasudeva Adiga. The petitioner is alleged to have entered into conspiracy with other accused. Accused No.2 is the brother-in-law of petitioner. The petitioner is alleged to have hatched a conspiracy in the house of his brother-in-law (accused No.2- Subramanya Udupa) at Bangalore on 04.01.2013. The petitioner is alleged to have entered into conspiracy with accused 3 to 8 and engage them as mercenaries to kidnap and commit murder of deceased Vasudeva Adiga. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 07.01.2013, deceased Vasudeva Adiga was kidnapped by petitioner and other accused. The deceased Vasudeva Adiga was done to death. The deadbody was transported in a car. The hands were tied and a stone was tied to deadbody of deceased Vasudeva Adiga and it was thrown into Madagada tank of Emmadoddi Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District. 3. The petitioner was arrested during investigation. He is in judicial custody. The petitioner has sought for bail. 4. I have heard Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State. 5. Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:- I. The case of prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. II. The investigation records do not reveal that petitioner had entered into conspiracy with other accused in the house of accused No.2 to kidnap and commit murder of deceased Vasudev Adiga. III. Accused No.2-Subramanya Udupa in whose house alleged conspiracy had taken place has been released on bail. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. IV. The prosecution has relied on inadmissible documents and weak evidence to implicate petitioner. There is no prima facie case against petitioner. Therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. 6. The learned HCGP has made following submissions:- I. This is second successive bail petition before this court. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. IV. The prosecution has relied on inadmissible documents and weak evidence to implicate petitioner. There is no prima facie case against petitioner. Therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. 6. The learned HCGP has made following submissions:- I. This is second successive bail petition before this court. The petitioner has filed Criminal Petition No.1408/2013 before this Hon'ble Court and it was dismissed on 14.03.2013. The petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.2307/2013 and it was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21.06.2013. II. There are prima facie incriminating circumstances against petitioner, which are stated thus:- (i) Petitioner and deceased Vasudeva Adiga had fought long standing civil litigations, which ended in favour of deceased Vasudeva Adiga. There was long standing enmity between petitioner and deceased Vasudeva Adiga. The petitioner had motive to commit murder of deceased Vasudeva Adiga. (ii) The statements of eye witnesses would reveal that on 04.01.2013, petitioner had gone to the house of accused No.2-Subramanya Udupa at Bangalore. At that time, petitioner, accused No.2 and other accused hatched conspiracy to eliminate deceased Vasudea Adiga. These facts are found in the statements of witnesses, who had overheard conversations of petitioner and other accused. (iii) The suspicious movements of petitioner with other accused on 07.01.2013 were noticed by other witnesses. Even before deadbody of deceased was noticed near Madagada lake of Emmadoddi Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District, the mother of deceased Vasudeva Adiga had lodged first information against petitioner, alleging that petitioner and other accused had kidnapped deceased Vasudeva Adiga. (iv) There is prima facie case against petitioner. Therefore, he cannot be enlarged on bail. The bail granted to accused no.2 during the investigation has been challenged by the mother of deceased Vasudeva Adiga as well as by the State in SLP (Crl.) No.4342/2013 and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6646/2013. (v) The petitioner was in continuous contact with other accused through his mobile phone. The call details would reveal that petitioner (accused No.1) had contacted other accused on 07.01.2013 before the incident. The petitioner (accused No.1) had taken other accused to handover photograph of deceased Vasudeva Adiga during forenoon of 07.01.2013. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail. 7. The petitioner had filed bail petition in Criminal Petition No.1408/2013, which was dismissed by this court on 14.03.2013. The petitioner (accused No.1) had taken other accused to handover photograph of deceased Vasudeva Adiga during forenoon of 07.01.2013. In the circumstances, petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail. 7. The petitioner had filed bail petition in Criminal Petition No.1408/2013, which was dismissed by this court on 14.03.2013. This court has passed the following order in Criminal Petition No.1408/2013:- "However, in respect of A1/petitioner is concerned he has enmity with Vasudeva Adiga and there are exchange of telephone calls between A1 and A4 to A8, this shows prima facie material against the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is dismissed." 8. Thereafter petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.2307/2013. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that final report was filed on 16.04.2013. On 21.06.2013, Criminal Petition No.2307/2013 was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner had not assigned reasons for withdrawing Criminal Petition No.2307/2013, as final report had been filed on 16.04.2013 and entire material was available and the grounds urged herein were available to petitioner on 21.06.2013. 9. As already stated, this court has dismissed Criminal Petition No.1408/2013 on 14.03.2013, which in fact was filed when investigation was in progress. Therefore, it is necessary to consider if circumstances have changed in favour of petitioner after final report is filed. 10. The documents filed along with investigation papers would reveal the following:- (i) Deceased Vasudeva Adiga was missing from his house around 9 a.m., on 07.01.2013. At the first instance, a missing report was filed. However, on 08.01.2013, the mother of deceased namely Smt.Shrungeshwari Adiga filed first information alleging that petitioner had kidnapped deceased Vasudeva Adiga and Crime No.5/2013 was registered for an offence punishable under section 364 r/w section 34 IPC. In connection with Crime No.5/2013, petitioner had been summoned by jurisdictional police and he had been interrogated. The deadbody of deceased Vasudeva Adiga was noticed on 12.01.2013 in Madagada tank of Emmadoddi Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District. There were injuries on deadbody and limbs of deceased Vasudeva Adiga had been tied and a stone had been tied to deadbody. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that involvement of petitioner was suspected even before deadbody of deceased Vasudeva Adiga was traced on 12.01.2013. The petitioner, who had visited jurisdictional police station after 08.01.2013 in relation to Crime No.5/2013 was absconding after deadbody of deceased was traced on 12.01.2013. Therefore, it can safely be inferred that involvement of petitioner was suspected even before deadbody of deceased Vasudeva Adiga was traced on 12.01.2013. The petitioner, who had visited jurisdictional police station after 08.01.2013 in relation to Crime No.5/2013 was absconding after deadbody of deceased was traced on 12.01.2013. The statements of prosecution witnesses namely CW49-Ramakrishna Udupa, CW50Lingadevaru and CW51-Mahesh Bhat would reveal that deceased Vasudeva Adiga had entered into conspiracy with accused 2 & 3 at 8.30 a.m., on 04.01.2013 in the house of accused No.2 at Bangalore. The statements of witnesses namely CW14-Krishna @ Babu Kulal & CW15Srinivasa Prabhu S/o.Seshava Prabhu would reveal that petitioner was moving with some strangers during afternoon and forenoon of 07.01.2013. 11. The statement of call details furnished by learned HCGP would show that petitioner, who was using mobile phone bearing No.9448733932, which was in the name of CW79-Prashant had contacted accused No.7 around 2.30 p.m., on 07.01.2013. The tower location was around the village of deceased. The statement of call details would also reveal that accused No.3 had contacted accused No.1 on the date of incident around 9 p.m. Further, statement of call details would reveal that petitioner had contacted accused No.7 around 2.30 p.m., on the date of incident. The tower location is near Madagada lake of Emmadoddi Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District. 12. The learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that statements of witnesses do not provide material to infer involvement of petitioner (accused No.1). The call details cannot be considered as prima facie material having regard to the fact that petitioner has been an astrologer by profession and several persons were approaching him in connection with profession of petitioner. 13. The learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that the case of prosecution that petitioner had entered into conspiracy with accused 2 & 3 in the house of accused No.2 at Bangalore looks highly improbable. 14. The learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that deceased Vasudeva Adiga was an RTI activist. Even according to investigation records, deceased Vasudeva Adiga had several enemies. Therefore, there is no prima facie material against petitioner for offences alleged against him. 15. Before appreciating these submissions, it will be useful to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.651/2007 (reported in 2007 (Supp.) AIR (SC) 256 in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. Even according to investigation records, deceased Vasudeva Adiga had several enemies. Therefore, there is no prima facie material against petitioner for offences alleged against him. 15. Before appreciating these submissions, it will be useful to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.651/2007 (reported in 2007 (Supp.) AIR (SC) 256 in the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chattisgarh & others), wherein the Supreme Court has held:- "At the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of the prima facie case established for granting bail, it cannot go into the question of the prima facie case established for granting bail, it cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of the witnesses can only be tested during the trial." 16. Therefore, at this stage, there are no reasons to suspect the statements of prosecution witnesses, indicating the above incriminating circumstances. This court while dismissing Criminal Petition No.1408/2013 on 14.03.2013 has held:- "However, in respect of A1/petitioner is concerned he has enmity with Vasudeva Adiga and there are exchange of telephone calls between A1 and A4 to A8, this shows prima facie material against the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is dismissed." 17. Thus, after final report was filed, prosecution has brought on record additional incriminating circumstances against petitioner (accused No.1), which has been discussed supra. 18. In the circumstances, I hold that there is prima facie case against petitioner for offences punishable under sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC. Having regard to the nature and magnitude of offences and conduct of petitioner before and after the incident, it would not be in the interest of justice to release petitioner on bail. 19. Therefore, I pass the following:- ORDER The petition is dismissed.