ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered as against accused No. 1 in respondent - police station Crime No. 154/2017 and subsequently, the present petitioner is also arraigned in the case as accused No. 2. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 2 so also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, at the first instance, the name of the present petitioner was not figured in the complaint and also in the FIR and the FIR was registered only against accused No. 1. Learned counsel also made submission that, looking to the complaint averments, it is mentioned by the complainant that the people were talking that it is accused No. 1 who might have committed the murder of deceased. It is also his submission that, no recovery is effected from the present petitioner and that the recoveries are from accused Nos. 1 and 3. Even looking to the entire prosecution materials, there is no prima-facie case as against the present petitioner. Learned counsel also made submission that, during the inquest mahazar proceedings also, accused No. 1 has not mentioned the name of present petitioner as assailant. Now, investigation of the case is complete and the charge sheet is also filed. By imposing reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that there are four eye-witnesses to the incident i.e. CWs. 2 to 5. Looking to their statements, they have clearly stated that even the present petitioner also assaulted the deceased with knife and looking to the Post Mortem report, the cause of death is because of multiple injuries sustained. Hence, he submits that as there are eye witnesses to the incident, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. 6. Looking to the statement of the eye witnesses CWs. Hence, he submits that as there are eye witnesses to the incident, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. 6. Looking to the statement of the eye witnesses CWs. 2 to 5 recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, they have stated that even the present petitioner also assaulted the deceased on his thighs with knife and caused bleeding injuries and in the further statement of the complainant, he has also stated that when he went to the spot, the said eye witnesses were present and they told him about the assailants. Perused the Post Mortem report. The Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased mentioned four external injuries over the body of the deceased and they were stab wounds and the cause of death is due to multiple injuries sustained. As there are eye witnesses to the incident, who have spoken about the presence and also assault made by the present petitioner with knife on the deceased, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.