ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 212, 114, 506, 120B, 109, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act registered in respondent – police station Crime No.247/2016. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that the FIR was registered against unknown persons. The identity of the accused persons was not at all established by the prosecution during the course of investigation. In this connection, he has referred to the further statement of the injured witnesses and also the eyewitnesses and submitted that there is no proper identification of the present petitioners by the alleged eyewitnesses. As such, there is no prima facie case as against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the allegation in the complaint is that on 19.8.2016 around 5.00 p.m. 3-4 persons came to the place where the deceased Rajesh was sitting along with his friend Venugopal and they have assaulted him with deadly weapons, but the charge sheet was filed against 14 persons. This itself shows that prosecution is not definite about the alleged incident. Now the investigation is completed and chargesheet is also filed. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioners are in custody. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the incident has taken place in a broad day light and there are injured eyewitness and also independent eyewitnesses to the incident. Referring to the post mortem report he has submitted that there are 36 external injuries over the body of the deceased Rajesh. On the voluntary statement of these two petitioners recorded by the investigating officer the deadly weapons and also blood stained clothes are recovered in the presence of panch witnesses. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. On the voluntary statement of these two petitioners recorded by the investigating officer the deadly weapons and also blood stained clothes are recovered in the presence of panch witnesses. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. No doubt the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. But looking to the complaint averments the incident took place at 5.00 p.m. i.e., in the day light. The complainant has mentioned that he has seen the assailants who assaulted Rajesh and Venugopal. Venugopal ran away due to the fear after sustaining injury. The prosecution material shows that during the course of investigation the present petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5. The post mortem report shows 36 external injuries over the body of the deceased. 8. I have perused the voluntary statements of the petitioners herein. They have stated that they have hidden the weapons and also blood stained clothes worn at the time of incident and if they are taken to the said place they will produce the same. There is also material to show that these two petitioners lead the police and panchas to the place, took out the deadly weapons and produced the same before the police. 9. I have also perused the FSL report with regard to examination of blood stains on the clothes of the deceased along with the clothes worn by the accused persons and also on the weapons. The result of the FSL is positive that the articles are stained with human blood of ‘O’ group. 10. Hence, the prosecution has placed prima facie material about the involvement of these two petitioners in committing the alleged offences. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of petitioners. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.