ORDER : This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 302, 201 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.178/2016. After conducting investigation charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Section 396 of IPC. 2. One Narasimhamurthy is the complainant wherein it is alleged that the deceased was murdered by some person as informed and later it came to be noticed that this accused along with other accused persons committed the murder of the decease. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 made the submission that looking to the FIR which came to be registered, the name of the present petitioner was not figured, but subsequently after recording the statement of CW18, the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1. Counsel further made the submission that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident of murder and the prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. He also made the submission that even with regard to the circumstances no recovery is effected from the present petitioner. He submitted that the other accused persons No.3, 4 and 5 were already released on bail. Hence, learned counsel submitted now the investigation is completed, charge-sheet is also filed, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the prosecution material and from trial, the statement of CW18 and CW19 and the toll entry regarding passing of the car at the said place, the prosecution placed the material to show that the accused persons took the deceased in the said car and thereafter they have committed the murder of the deceased. He also made the submission that there is a recovery of the blood stained clothes in the presence of panch witnesses and they were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2, which they have took out from the bushes kept in the polythene hand cover having blood stains. Hence, he submitted there is a prima-facie material placed by the prosecution as against the present petitioner. Therefore, ground of parity is not made applicable to the present petitioner. Hence, he submitted there is a prima-facie material placed by the prosecution as against the present petitioner. Therefore, ground of parity is not made applicable to the present petitioner. He submitted to reject the bail application. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced in the case, so also I have perused the statement of CW18, wherein he has stated that he has seen the five accused persons who were in the car, took deceased in their car and went away. Regarding the passing of the car at the said toll place, toll entry is also produced by the prosecution. I have also perused the statement of CW19, owner of the car, so also looking to the prosecution material, wherein the statement of one Tanveer Pasha of Nelamangala has stated that the accused No.1/Syed Saddam has sold the mobile phone for Rs.4,000/-. The said mobile phone was also seized in the presence of panch witnesses and majazar was conducted between 10.30 A.M. and 11.15 A.M. The materials further goes to show, accused Nos.1 and 2 gave voluntary statement before Investigation Officer, stating that they have hidden the blood stained clothes which they wore at the time of committing the alleged offence of murder, if they are taken to the said place they will point out and produce the same. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer took the accused persons to the said place and from the bushes they took out one polythene hand cover and produced the blood stained clothes which was seized in the presence of panch witnesses. 7. Considering these materials placed on record by the prosecution, I am of the opinion, so far as accused No.1/petitioner herein is concerned there is a prima-facie case made out by the prosecution about the involvement in committing the said murder. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.