ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 as per charge sheet and accused No.1 as per FIR, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3, 4, 7 and 25 of ARMS Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.94/2016. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the contents of the complaint filed by one Kashif Sharif made submission that according to the contents of complaint, it is said that the person who shot the deceased with revolver was Sameer @ Baas. Subsequently, on 22.6.2016, further complaint of the complainant was recorded and in the further complaint, it was stated by the complainant that after seeing the incident, he was in a perplexed mood and because of that reason, there was a mistake in mentioning the name of the person who shot the deceased Parvez with revolver. Regarding the allegation the petitioner shot the deceased, the revolver is not at all recovered during the course of investigation. Pistol produced by the prosecution goes to show that the pistol that was thrown in a dam at Krishnagiri was not found. The only material that was seized from the possession of the petitioner, at his instance, is one vehicle. Except that there is nothing on record to show his involvement in committing the offence. Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not at all committed the alleged offence the petitioner has contended that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that the complainant on the very next day of the incident clarified the correct facts stating that it is not Sameer @ Bass who shoot the deceased but it is the present petitioner who shot the deceased and thereby caused his death. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP made submission that the complainant on the very next day of the incident clarified the correct facts stating that it is not Sameer @ Bass who shoot the deceased but it is the present petitioner who shot the deceased and thereby caused his death. Hence, in view of this clarification immediately on very next day of the incident, prima facie goes to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. He also made submission that as per PM report and opinion of the doctor, it is stated that the death is on account of the gun shot injury. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record 6. Looking to the prosecution material, more particularly, the contents of the complaint goes to show that there are injured witnesses to the incident so also the other witnesses. The complainant gave further statement on the next date of the incident. In the original complaint, there is averment that it is one Sameer @ Baas who shot the deceased with revolver and the said bullet hit on the right chest of the deceased and he collapsed and thereafter the accused persons ran away with their two wheeler vehicle. Looking to the further statement of the complainant recorded on the next date of the incident, he clarified that after seeing the incident, he was in perplexed mood and because of that reason, he stated name of one Sameer @ Baas instead of name of the petitioner who shot the deceased. In the further statement, the complainant confirmed that it is the present petitioner who shot at the chest of the deceased and bullet hit to the left side chest portion. 7. I have also perused the PM report and opinion of the doctor. The doctor in his opinion has stated that the death is because of gun shot injuries. Therefore, there is consistency in the case of prosecution with regard to medical records. Regarding the revolver, it is thrown in a dam in Krishnagiri, which could not be traced. Therefore, it cannot said that the petitioner can be released on bail. The prosecution has prima facie placed material against the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Therefore, there is consistency in the case of prosecution with regard to medical records. Regarding the revolver, it is thrown in a dam in Krishnagiri, which could not be traced. Therefore, it cannot said that the petitioner can be released on bail. The prosecution has prima facie placed material against the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected.