ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.34/2016 of Afzalpur Police Station, Afzalpur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 302, 307 r/w 149 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, the husband of the complainant has contested the Gram Panchayat Election against accused No.2-Ramesh and in the said election the said Ramesh was defeated. In that contest there was ill-will between the two families. In that background, on 24.03.2016 at about 9:15 p.m. when deceased Kallappa and others were near Kanakadas circle where they were building Ambedkar circle and were cleaning the same, at that time accused persons came there and started quarreling by using abusive words and also told that how much amount they have received and who has asked them to do the said work. In that light the accused persons made the deceased by pushing to lay on the ground and at that time accused persons assaulted the deceased with sticks and rod and as a result of the same he sustained bleeding injuries and under the impression that he has died they left the place and immediately the deceased was taken to the hospital and there hospital authorities declared him as dead and a complaint was registered. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the entire genesis of the case of the complainant and the prosecution is a mystery and the facts and events discloses the fact that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. Further, it is contended that even though he was not present at the place of incident, he has been falsely implicated. He has further contended that even the alleged incident is said to have been taken place at about 9:15 p.m., but the FIR has been received by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 25.03.2016 at 11:00 a.m. He has further contended that the said FIR has been anti timed. He has further contended that even the alleged incident is said to have been taken place at about 9:15 p.m., but the FIR has been received by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 25.03.2016 at 11:00 a.m. He has further contended that the said FIR has been anti timed. He has further contended that when the injured was taken to the hospital at that time the person who was present along with him has stated that the assailants are the unknown persons and the same has been recorded in the records of Basaveshwar Teaching and General Hospital, Gulbarga. He has further contended that even though there is allegation to the effect that the accused – petitioner has assaulted the deceased with rod and the said rod has not been sent to FSL for a chemical examination. He has further contended that inquest which has been held on the next day it also discloses that the names of the accused is unknown but the complaint itself discloses the names of the accused persons. In that context, he urged that a false case has been registered against the accused. He has further contended that the remaining accused persons have already been released on bail, as such, he is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. 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 the accused-petitioner is the main accused who has assaulted the deceased with a rod and the post mortem report indicates that the death is due to head injury. He has further contended that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and they have specifically deposed the overt acts of accused-petitioner. As such, the accused-petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. He has further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As such, the accused-petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. He has further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. As such, the accused-petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the genesis of the case is a mystery and there are so many lapses in the case of the prosecution and the documents which have been brought to my notice to show that the names of the accused persons have been included at a later stage and these are all the matters, which have to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial. The Court should not hold a mini trial and adjudicate the case on merits at the time of considering the bail. Learned Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v/s Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 has observed that detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail; to ensure that there is no prejudging and no prejudice is caused to the accused or the prosecution. Keeping in view the said proposition of law, the only aspect which the Court has to keep in mind is that whether prima facie there is any material to show that the accused has been involved in the alleged crime or not and what overt act has been attributed to him. By going through the records it indicates that it is the accused petitioner who has assaulted the deceased on his head with the iron rod and as a result of the same, the deceased has succumbed to the said injuries on the spot. Even I have gone through the material to see whether the grounds of parity can be extended to the accused petitioner but role of accused No.3 who has been released on bail is quite different than that of the present accused petitioner. In that light, the ground of parity also cannot be extended to the accused petitioner. Even I have gone through the material to see whether the grounds of parity can be extended to the accused petitioner but role of accused No.3 who has been released on bail is quite different than that of the present accused petitioner. In that light, the ground of parity also cannot be extended to the accused petitioner. Looking from any angle even though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to bring all the materials to convenience this Court to show that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, but prima facie it will not satisfy to release him on bail. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the petition stands dismissed.