ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No. 31/2016 of Jewargi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that, complainant Nimbenna has stated that they are eight brothers living separately along with their wives and children, eldest brother by name Yellaling is also living separately along with his wife and children. His brother Yellaling used to go to the house of petitioner accused and he used to talk freely with the wife of petitioner. He used to give frequent visits to the house of the petitioner, for which the complainant and others have advised him not to do so. For this reason, the petitioner has told before others that they will not leave the deceased as they have suspected that he has got illicit connection with the wife of the petitioner. On 22.02.2016, the brother of the complainant Sri Yellaling has gone to Jewargi in connection with depositing the amount to Mahindra showroom Tractor loan account. While returning from Jewargi on a motorcycle, Sri Yellaling has gone to the house of accused, which is situated in their land, to tease the wife of the petitioner i.e., Neelamma (accused No.2) and she caught hold his shirt and knocked him down. The complainant was also present there and he went away from the spot, because his brother Sri Yellaling has told him to leave the place. The accused persons assaulted Sri Yellaling and thereafter, shifted to Vatsalya Hospital at Kalaburagi for treatment. On the basis of the said complaint, initially the case has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC along with other offences, but subsequently on 23.02.2016 i.e., on the next day of the incident, as the injured succumbed to injuries in the hospital, requisition was made to the concerned Court to insert the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC also. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged person and has suffering with old age ailments and also asthma. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aged person and has suffering with old age ailments and also asthma. He has also contended that there is case and counter case and only because of that cases, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further contended that already the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner is languishing in the jail for more than one year and no useful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars. Further, he contended that the petitioner is innocent and if he is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and 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 very strongly objected the petition by contending that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the petitioner is the main accused who has assaulted the deceased with axe and caused the death. He has also contended that there is a prima-facie material to show that the petitioner has involved in a heinous offence of murder of the deceased. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the complaint and also gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. 7. Looking to the complaint averments, it discloses that the incident was started in front of the house of the petitioner. Looking to the statement of witnesses i.e., C.Ws.8, 9 and 10, they have clearly stated before the investigating officer that they have seen the petitioner along with other accused caught holding of the deceased, made him to lye on the ground and the petitioner brought the axe and assaulted the deceased on his head and other parts of the body. When there is overtact on the part of the petitioner, eyewitnesses are there to show that petitioner has involved in a heinous offence, it is sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie case as against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. When there is overtact on the part of the petitioner, eyewitnesses are there to show that petitioner has involved in a heinous offence, it is sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie case as against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Be that as it may, even on perusal of the records, it discloses that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in Criminal Petition No. 200822/2016. This Court, after considering all the material and the grounds urged therein, has rejected the petition on 27.07.2016. Even the petitioner has not made out any new ground to exercise the discretionary power vested with this Court. When there is prima-facie material and there is no good grounds to consider the petition, under such circumstances, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.