JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. r/w section 12(A) of Juvenile Justice Act seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 307, 324 r/w section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.44/2017. 2. One Sandesh lodged the complaint alleging that on 18.3.2017 at about 8.30 p.m. when the complainant and deceased Girish along with his friends were having drinks at Vinayaka Layout, Bommanakatte village, at that time a phone call came to the deceased and there was a conversation between the deceased and one Avinash regarding earlier altercation. The deceased abused Avinash by stating that he had quarreled day before yesterday near Auto Stand and has posed a challenge to him, if he is dire enough, he should come to the place where they were sitting. At that time, immediately all the accused went to the said place where the deceased and his friends were sitting holding deadly weapons in an autorickshaw and motor bikes. Avinash assaulted the deceased by machete to the front and back of the head. The juvenile offender assaulted the deceased with a club to the back of the head and thereafter the deceased fell down. One Shivu dropped a stone on the face of the deceased causing grievous injuries and that the complainant and one Kantharaj were present at the time of the incident and when they tried to pacify the galata, they also sustained injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered for the said offences. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the petitioner is a juvenile offender as on the date of the alleged incident. It is also his submission that in fact there are no eye witnesses to the incident. But the prosecution falsely planted complainant Sandesh and another person as eye witnesses to the incident. Learned counsel refers to the statement of the wife of the deceased wherein she has stated the name of Avinash and there is no mention of other accused persons. But the prosecution falsely planted complainant Sandesh and another person as eye witnesses to the incident. Learned counsel refers to the statement of the wife of the deceased wherein she has stated the name of Avinash and there is no mention of other accused persons. Learned counsel has also produced the wound certificates of Sandesh and Kantharaj and made the submission that in the history the doctor mentions 'assault by unknown persons'. Therefore, referring to these materials learned counsel made the submission, this goes to show that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and a false implication of the petitioner is made in the present case. Hence, learned counsel submitted, by imposing reasonable conditions, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that there are two eye witnesses to the incident who have clearly stated that they have seen the assailants along with the present petitioner also assaulting the deceased and committing his murder. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. So far as the merits are concerned, the complainant-Sandesh lodged the complaint. The complainant has stated that he was along with the deceased so also with some other friends having drinks at a place and there was telephone conversation between A-1 and the deceased. Thereafter, A-1 along with other accused persons came and assaulted the deceased and caused his death. The complaint averments also goes to show that when himself and Kantharaju went to the rescue of the deceased, they were also assaulted and they also sustained injuries and got the treatment at the hospital. These averments mentioned in the complaint are supported by the wound certificates of both complainant Sandesh and another eye witness Kantharaj. The wound certificates goes to show, so far as Kantharaj is concerned, cut lacerated wound which is simple in nature and so far as Sandesh is concerned, there was a wound near the left eye, swelling of left cheek, which are grievous in nature, Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he has personally witnessed the incident and in that he also sustained injury along with Kantharaj is supported by the documentary evidence at this stage. In the complaint there is a specific allegation that the present petitioner A-3 assaulted the deceased with a club on the back side of the head. Considering these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has placed prima facie material so far as the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence is concerned. 7. On referring to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a juvenile offender, I have perused the petition. In the cause title there is no mention about the age of the juvenile offender. But during the course of argument learned counsel submitted that he is a juvenile offender. If that is so, the concerned Court has to conduct enquiry in this regard, then to ascertain whether he is really a juvenile offender or not. In case if he is found to be a juvenile offender, liberty is given to the petitioner to again move the court seeking his release on bail under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. With this observation, the petition is rejected.