ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.106/2016 of Babaleshwar Police Station, Bijapur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, the deceased Raju had given an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to accused No.1 and subsequently when the deceased asked to return the said amount, accused No.1 had given a life threat and the same was also intimated by deceased to his father. When that being the case, on 09.06.2016 at about 7:00 p.m. accused Nos.1 to 5 came near the house of the complainant by constituting unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons and started abusing the deceased Raju in filthy language and at that time accused No.2 dragged the deceased upto CC road in front of the house of the complainant and assaulted with sickle on his neck. Accused Babu and Anand also assaulted the said Raju by means of sickle on his neck and the other parts of the body. When the complainant and his wife and daughter-in-law tried to pacify the said galata, accused persons threatened them and also assaulted the complainant. On the basis of complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence alleged against them. He has further contended that the post mortem report indicates that there is one chop wound present over the neck just below mandible. It itself indicates that one injury has been caused with sharp edged weapon and other injuries are not connected to any sharp edged weapon. As such, the question of petitioner assaulting with sharp edged weapon does not arise. He has further contended that even though complaint discloses the fact that accused Nos.1 and 4 have also assaulted with sharp edged weapon but there are no injuries. He has further contended that accused-petitioners have got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of they being absconded. He has further contended that even though complaint discloses the fact that accused Nos.1 and 4 have also assaulted with sharp edged weapon but there are no injuries. He has further contended that accused-petitioners have got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of they being absconded. He has further contended that other accused persons have already been released on bail, even on the ground of parity accused-petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail. He has further contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and they are ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and there are overt acts on the part of accused Nos.1 and 4 and they have directly involved in the alleged crime. He has further contended that accused-petitioners only with an intention to cause the death of the deceased assaulted with sharp edged weapons and thereby caused death, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has further contended that at this juncture, if the petitioners are released on bail, there is likelihood of they being absconded and they may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. The main contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is delay of 48 hours in filing the complaint and even the post mortem report also does not tally with the version of the complaint as there is only one chop wound present over the neck just below the mandible. He has further contended that accused No.1 belongs to highly respectable family there is no question of he taking Rs.2,00,000/- from the deceased and the deceased demanding the same as such it shows that a false implication has been made by the complainant. It is well established principles of law that at the time of considering the bail application Court should not held a mini trial and adjudicate the facts and other things so as to influence the further trial of the case. It is well established principles of law that at the time of considering the bail application Court should not held a mini trial and adjudicate the facts and other things so as to influence the further trial of the case. The Court has to see only prima facie material at the time of considering the bail. Keeping in view the said aspect if the entire material is perused it indicates that it is accused Nos.1 and 4 actively participated and have assaulted the deceased with sharp edged weapons and thereby caused injuries. Whether the said assault has caused the death or not is a matter, which has to be appreciated only at the time of trial. Prima facie material has been produced by the prosecution to show that accused have involved in the alleged crime and the said offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life and there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Even though the learned counsel has to contend that other accused persons have been released on bail on the ground of parity, these petitioners are entitled to bail but they are not standing on the same footing and there is active participation by the accused petitioners in the alleged incident. As such, ground of parity cannot be extended to these petitioners. I feel it is not just and proper to release the accused on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.