ORDER : This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Savalagi P.S. Crime No.43/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Whereas the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused and the accused is required to be facing up of trial for the heinous offences relating to Crime No.43/2017. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein in this successive bail petition and the earlier bail petition filed by this accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected by its order dated 26th July 2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Sujata being the wife of Chandrashekhar Shetty lodged a complaint on 21.04.2017 alleging that her husband and her brother are residing at Chikkalaki Cross and were running business of “Egg Rice Shop” at Chikkalaki Cross and their business were prosperous and very popular in the area. Therefore, the neighboring shop owner namely Sudhir Bahusab Shindhe being arraigned as accused No.1 developed grudge against the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty being the husband of the complainant and picked up quarrel on 03.04.2017. On intervention of the elderly persons, the husband of the complainant was advised not to lodge the complaint against the accused person before the Police. But the accused No.1 continued his grudge against the complainant’s husband. On 16.04.2017, in the evening, when the deceased- Chandrashekhar Shetty had been to shop and was doing his business and the complainant’s brother was also with him in the shop at about 9:30 p.m. and the deceased- Chandrashekhar Shetty informed the complainant’s brother to go home and he will close the shop and come afterwards. This is the case, which is filed by the complainant before the Police initially and based upon the complaint, crime came to be registered and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation by the Investigating Officer. But the complainant did not return to home during night hours, the complainant’s brother at about 3:00 a.m. saw that the shop was not closed and he immediately called the complainant and asked about her husband-Chandrashekhar Shetty has come to house or not. But the complainant did not return to home during night hours, the complainant’s brother at about 3:00 a.m. saw that the shop was not closed and he immediately called the complainant and asked about her husband-Chandrashekhar Shetty has come to house or not. Whereas the complainant replied that he has not come home. Subsequently, they searched for him in Chikkalaki, Hirepadasalagi, Arjunagi villages, but he was not traced and the efforts of them are went in vain. On the next day on 18.04.2017, the complainant lodged the missing complaint before Savalagi P.S. about Chandrashekhar Shetty being the husband of the complainant was missing. On 21.04.2017 some passersby after smelting foul smell, which was emanating from the place as where the dead body of the person was lying, though it was buried the half of the body was visible and it was eaten by some animals. The complainant who secured to the place, as where the dead body was buried and half of the body was visible. On seeing the dead body, the complainant identified the same and thereafter she has given statement before the Police relating to the dead body of Chandrashekhar Shetty, who being her husband. On the basis of the complaint as well as the statement given by her, crime came to be registered against the first accused – Sudhir Bahusab Shinde and during the course of investigation, this petitioner arraigned as accused No.3 was apprehended in Crime No.43/2017, as this accused was also participated with other accused in eliminating the deceased. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has contended that there was no role made by this accused in eliminating the deceased- Chandrashekhar Shetty being the husband of the complainant. Based on the voluntary statement of the accused No.1, the present petitioner is arraigned as one of the accused in the case and during the course of investigation, this accused has been apprehended. But this accused has never accompanied with other accused Nos.1 and 2 in eliminating the deceased, as narrated in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. Based on the voluntary statement of the accused No.1, the present petitioner is arraigned as one of the accused in the case and during the course of investigation, this accused has been apprehended. But this accused has never accompanied with other accused Nos.1 and 2 in eliminating the deceased, as narrated in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. It is further contended that there is no specific overt act attributed against the accused in eliminating the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty and also made assault over his person by using long chopper, it consisting chain, which ought to have used by the accused for pressing the neck of the deceased and the same has been reflected in the charge sheet, which is laid by the Investigating Officer, but there was no fracture of hyoid bone and this contention was also taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments advanced relating to the charge sheet laid against the accused, it consisting statement of CW17 and CW18. However, CW17 and CW18 said to be witnesses and their statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer, as they have seen the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty with the first accused. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken through the material allegations of complaint as well as the statements, which said to be recorded by the Investigating Officer. As per the complaint filed by the complainant, there was a grudge in between first accused and the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty, who is running “Egg Rice Shop” at Chikkalaki Cross and his business was prosperous and very popular in the area. For that reason, the first accused picked up quarrel with the deceased. But this accused i.e., petitioner herein was not involved with other accused to commit the murder of the deceased Chandrashekhar Shetty and also used the deadly weapons like chopper, it consisting of chin, which is used for pressing the neck of the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty and carried the dead body from the scene of crime to the place where the dead body has been buried and half of the body was visible and it was eaten by the animals. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody and also the charge sheet has been laid by the Investigating Officer in the case. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody and also the charge sheet has been laid by the Investigating Officer in the case. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the new ground stating that if the deceased was put to death by pressing his neck, definitely hyoid bone of the deceased must suffer fracture. In this case, there was no fracture of hyoid bone of the deceased and there was no specific overt act attributed against the accused in eliminating the deceased. The statements of the CW17 and CW18 have been recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, which is only a circumstantial evidence in order to establish the guilt against the accused and this accused is not required to the Investigating Agency in any further. It is further contended that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not at all committed the alleged offences and despite of it, the crime came to be registered by the respondent – Police against the petitioner just to give harassment to him and there is no direct overt act attributed against the petitioner for the alleged offences and moreover the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent – State vehemently contended that the entire materials which were collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, which is based upon the complaint filed by the complainant being the wife of the deceased. Initially missing complaint came to be registered by Savalagi P.S. in Crime No.43/2017. During the course of investigation, the dead body of the deceased was found and the same was identified by the complainant, who is the wife of the deceased. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer recorded her statement and proceed with the case for investigation by recording the statements of CW17 and CW18. However, the entire charge sheet, which consisting the statements of witnesses as well as the mahazar, which is said to be conducted by the Investigating Officer, as these statements of CW17 and CW18 are vital to establish the guilt against the accused persons. However, the entire charge sheet, which consisting the statements of witnesses as well as the mahazar, which is said to be conducted by the Investigating Officer, as these statements of CW17 and CW18 are vital to establish the guilt against the accused persons. As per the complaint filed by the complainant, there was a grudge in between first accused and the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty, who is running “Egg Rice Shop” at Chikkalaki Cross and his business was very popular in the area. For that reason, the first accused picked up quarrel with the deceased. But this accused i.e., petitioner herein was involved with other accused to committing the murder of the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty and also used the deadly weapons like chopper, it consisting of chain, which is used for pressing the neck of the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty and carried the dead body from the scene of crime to the place where the dead body has been buried and half of the body was visible and it was eaten by the animals and the same has been find place in the charge sheet which is laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused. He further contended that the coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on merits on 26th July 2017 in Crl.P.No.101449/2017 relating to the same case in Crime No.43/2017. Therefore, it appears that there are prima facie materials against the accused and accordingly, the learned HCGP prayed to reject the bail petition, as the petitioner does not deserve for the bail as sought for and if the petitioner is supposed to be released on bail, he would come in the way of the prosecution case and destroy the evidence. 6. Keeping in view of the grounds which is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also the learned HCGP for the State that relating to the case in Crime No.43/2017 said to be registered by the Savalagi P.S., initially crime came to be registered on filing of the complaint by the complainant Sujata, who being the wife of the deceased Chandrashekar Shetty. It is seen that the husband of the complainant was running “Egg Rice Stall” at Chikkalaki Cross. It is seen that the husband of the complainant was running “Egg Rice Stall” at Chikkalaki Cross. There was some quarrel between the accused, who being arraigned as accused No.1, who was also running a hotel, as there was development of enmity between the accused as well as the deceased. Therefore, there was quarrel took between the Chandrashekar Shetty and also the first accused on 03.04.2017. Subsequently on the intervention of elderly persons, the husband of the complainant was advised not to lodge the complaint against the accused person before the Police. But the accused No.1 continued his grudge against the complainant’s husband. On 16.04.2017, in the evening, when the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty had been to shop and was doing his business and the complainant’s brother was also with him in the shop at about 9:30 p.m. and the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty informed the complainant’s brother to go home and he will close the shop and come afterwards. This is the case, which is filed by the complainant before the Police initially and based upon the complaint, crime came to be registered and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation by the Investigating Officer. But the complainant did not return to home during night hours, the complainant’s brother at about 3:00 a.m. saw that the shop was not closed and he immediately called the complainant and asked about her husband-Chandrashekhar Shetty has come to house or not. Whereas the complainant replied that he has not come home. Subsequently, they searched for him in Chikkalaki, Hirepadasalagi, Arjunagi villages, but he was not traced and the efforts of them are went in vain. Therefore, he had been to Savalagi P.S. and filed a missing complaint. Subsequent to registration of missing complaint, during the course of investigation that there was a clue collected by the Investigating Officer, as wherein the first accused who given a voluntary statement said to be given an information about this accused had also participated in eliminating the deceased, as this petitioner being arraigned as accused No.3. 7. On 21.04.2017, wherein some passerby after smelting foul smell, which was emanating from the place as where the dead body of the person was lying, though it was buried the half of the body was visible and it was eaten by some animals. 7. On 21.04.2017, wherein some passerby after smelting foul smell, which was emanating from the place as where the dead body of the person was lying, though it was buried the half of the body was visible and it was eaten by some animals. Therefore, the Police secured the complainant to the place where the dead body was buried and the complainant identified the same. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer recorded her statement and thereafter proceeded with the case for offences alleged against the accused No.1, who being the brother of the deceased. As at the instance of this accused that the deadly weapons of long chopper said to be containing the chain alleged to be used by the accused at the time of committing the murder of the deceased-Chandrashekhar Shetty by pressing the vital part of the neck to commit the murder, as the dead body carried from the scene of crime and buried the same at a distance of 40 kms., wherein half of the body was visible and also smelting foul smell and the same was notified by passersby. Subsequently, on getting the voluntary statement of first accused, as the accused disclosed the name of this petitioner, being arraigned as accused No.3 and the same is reflected in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer, as the charge sheet it consisting the statement of witnesses said to be recorded and also conducted mahazar, it is in the presence of panch witnesses. But the statement of CW17 and CW18, it reveals as the present of this accused was in accompanying with the first accused who is said to be the brother of the deceased and it is involvement of this accused said to be eliminating the deceased and same it can be seen in the materials collected by the Investigating Officer, wherein he laid the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.43/2017 said to be registered by the Savalagi P.S. and also at the instance of this accused a long chopper said to be containing a chain was seized in the presence of panch witnesses and same finds place in the charge sheet. 8. 8. Therefore, at this stage, it is said that there are enough materials secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and proceeded with the case against the accused to frame charge as well as facing up of trial that too be heinous offences under Sections 302, 201 and 404 of the IPC. Whereas, insofar as Section 404 of IPC is concerned, the gold ring wearing by the deceased recovered during investigation by the Investigating Officer and same reveals in the charge sheet laid against the accused. Therefore, it is said that if the accused supposed to be released on bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society. The new ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no fracture of hyoid bone, said to be used by deadly weapons of long chopper, which containing the chain, it does not hold any substance in seeking the relief of bail as sought for by urging the ground as new circumstances. But the earlier bail petition filed by the accused came to be dismissed on 26th of July, 2017 in Criminal Petition No.101449/2017, as wherein it also reveals as the statements of CW17 and CW18 said to be the prosecution evidence recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. 9. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the accused does not deserve for bail as sought for. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.