JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 307, 302, 109, 114 and 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. Cr.No.582/2016. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to the averments made in the complaint and also the other charge sheet materials, made submission that there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence, more particularly the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The learned counsel submitted that though the earlier bail application moved by the petitioner along with the other accused persons came to be rejected but liberty was given that after recording the statement of material witnesses, the petitioner can renew his request. Hence, the rejection of earlier bail application will not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing his right by filing the present petition. Even looking to the statement of the alleged eye witnesses C.Ws.1 and 2, it is not consistent and not corroborated with the medical evidence. This itself clearly goes to show that there is false implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence. The learned Counsel submitted that the investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State made submission that there are injured witnesses for the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC. He refers to the statement of C.Ws.1 and 2 and their statement shows that the petitioners-accused NOs.2 and 3 were possessing the deadly weapons with which they had assaulted the deceased. Hence, there is prima facie case against the petitioner-accused No.1 of his involvement in committing the murder of the deceased. The learned HCGP also submitted that looking to the earlier bail order at para No.8 of the said order, the Court has observed reasons for rejecting the petition of the petitioner herein and accused Nos.2 and 3. Hence, there is prima facie case against the petitioner-accused No.1 of his involvement in committing the murder of the deceased. The learned HCGP also submitted that looking to the earlier bail order at para No.8 of the said order, the Court has observed reasons for rejecting the petition of the petitioner herein and accused Nos.2 and 3. This goes to show that at that time also when the Court considered their bail petition, there was prima facie materials placed by the prosecution. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the regular bail. The learned HCGP further submitted that now the charges are to be framed and the matter is to be proceeded with recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record so also the order dated 19.4.2017 passed in Crl.P. No.2219/2017. 6. Looking to the order passed in Crl.P. No.2219/2017, this Court has observed in para No.7 of the said order as under: “It is further noticed from prosecution papers that the weapons are seized from a open space after one month of the incidence at the instance of accused No.2 and after a time gap of six days at the instance of accused No.3. The eye witnesses have consistently referred to the overt-act of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in causing the murder of Muthuraju alias Koti and Nandeesha. The discrepancy between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence is onus on the prosecution to explain during trial. The discrepancy, if any in the prosecution evidence is a matter to be looked into at the time of evaluation of evidence at final stage as regards these 3 accused are concerned having regard to specific role attributed to them in the alleged incident. In the considered opinion of this court, at this stage, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are not entitled for bail." 7. Observing as such, this Court at the end of the said paragraph held that at this stage, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are not entitled for bail. In the considered opinion of this court, at this stage, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are not entitled for bail." 7. Observing as such, this Court at the end of the said paragraph held that at this stage, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are not entitled for bail. No doubt, liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply after the statement of material prosecution witnesses was recorded, but this clearly goes to show that as on the date of passing the said order, the statement of the eye witnesses was very much available before the Court and this Court has considered the said statement. Now, it will not make any change when the said statement, which was already considered by the Court holding that there was clear involvement of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 therein. Therefore, considering the materials so also the statement of C.Ws.1 and 2 and the medical opinion, I am of the opinion that there is prima facie case as against the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is rejected.