ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.61/2016 of Chincholi Police Station, Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 307, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the petitioner and CW.21 Khaleem. In that background, on 02.05.2016 at about 8:00 p.m. petitioner along with other accused came to the hotel and insisted Jabbarmiyan to prepare chilly pakoda (mirchi baji) for which Jabbarmiyan told that he has already closed the hotel and it is not possible for him to now prepare as he has to attend one function of his relative. In that background, there was exchange of words between them and thereafter the accused persons assaulted the deceased. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused petitioner assaulted the deceased on his head with iron rod and another person also assaulted with fist on his left side and on the head and thereby caused the injuries. Subsequently injured died due to the said injuries. 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 other accused persons have already been released on bail by the Court below and this Court, therefore, on the ground of parity the accused petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. He has further contended that referring to the post mortem report, the death of the deceased is as a result of hypovoelemic shock due to rupture of spleen and as such, the deceased has not died due to the injuries which is said to have been caused to the head. He has further contended that charge-sheet has already been filed and no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the accused-petitioner in custody. He has further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. He has further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is 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 eye witnesses to the alleged incident and it is accused-petitioner who is the main person and has directly assaulted on the head of the deceased and also he squeezed testicles and caused the death. He has further contended that the accused-petitioner has involved in heinous offence of murder, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he 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 learned counsel for the petitioner has made available the charge sheet material. Looking to the charge sheet material and statement of the witnesses, it would indicate that there are two incidents which have taken place in this behalf. One is in the shop of Jabbarmiyan and another one is in the house of Mansur Ali. As per the charge sheet material, eyewitnesses to the incident have stated that, petitioner along with other accused persons was present in both the places and he has actively participated in the alleged crime. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the deceased has not died due to the assault caused by the petitioner with an iron rod, but careful perusal of the statement of the complainant–Asif would indicate that the petitioner has kicked on the private part of the deceased. The postmortem report which has been made available also indicate that the cause of death is due to hypovoelemic shock due to rupture of spleen. All these things clearly go to show that it is the petitioner who has caused injury to the private part of the deceased and the deceased has died due to the said injury. The postmortem report which has been made available also indicate that the cause of death is due to hypovoelemic shock due to rupture of spleen. All these things clearly go to show that it is the petitioner who has caused injury to the private part of the deceased and the deceased has died due to the said injury. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the other accused persons have already been released on bail and on the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. But the petitioner/accused does not stand on the same footing as that of other accused as such, the ground of parity will not come to his aid. However, by taking into consideration the overt-acts of the petitioner and when there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner, I feel that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.