JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. I have heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also the learned H.C.G.P. for the respondent. 2. One complainant-Manjunath Kariyappa Dodamani in his complaint alleged that accused No.1 is having illicit relationship with accused No.6. Complainant is residing in Alagundi B.K. village along with his wife Nirmala, his parents-Kariyappa and Rukmavva and his elder brother Yallappa and his wife Shashikala. His elder sister-Shobha was given in marriage with accused No.1-Arjun Lakkappa Hurakannavar of Mudenur village of Ramadurga taluk. The family relationship between the complainant as well as accused No.1 are not in cordial terms and there is a land dispute in between two family members. Sister of accused No.1 married with accused No.2-Daitappa Laxmappa Dodamani. The complainant's elder sister namely, Shoba informed the complainant telephonically that her husband-accused No.1-Arjun Lakkappa Hurakannavar is having an illicit relationship with one Sunita Krishnappa Lamani, who has been arrayed as accused No.6 and he kept her in a farm house belongs to accused No.4 and accused No.1 used to visit the said farm house. On the date of incident, the complainant came to know about the incident over the phone and immediately, complainant rushed to the place of incident and by seeing the complainant, accused persons fled away from the place. On enquiry, the other injured persons have revealed regarding the incident. Hence, he has lodged a complaint. 3. The police after receiving the complaint have registered a case in Crime No.139/2018 against these petitioners and also against other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The petitioners in this petition has contended that they have approached the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, by filing Misc.No.608/2018 and same came to be rejected on 25/8/2018 and now the petitioners are before this Court invoking Section 439 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that there are no any incriminating circumstances to establish that this petitioners have committed the alleged offences. There was no any motive for committing the murder and the allegation made in the complaint against these petitioners is also very vague and complaint was filed on a wrong presumption and assumption and the same does not disclose any prima facie case against these petitioners. There was no any motive for committing the murder and the allegation made in the complaint against these petitioners is also very vague and complaint was filed on a wrong presumption and assumption and the same does not disclose any prima facie case against these petitioners. The complainant has falsely implicated all the family members in the alleged offences and police have falsely registered a criminal case against these petitioners. These petitioners are having their own permanent abode and having both the movable and immovable property and there is no chances of fleeing away from the clutches of justice and they may be enlarged on bail by imposing certain stringent conditions and they are ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his argument vehemently reiterated the grounds urged in the bail petition and further contended that there is no any specific allegation against these petitioners and only one injury on the head of the deceased and the complainant who gave a statement before the police also does not specify the overt act of these petitioners. Investigation has been completed and the police have filed a charge sheet and no requirement of custody of these petitioners and hence, petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State in his argument contends that on looking into the complaint averments and statement of witnesses of PWs.13, 14 and 15, who are the injured eye-witnesses have made a statement during the course of investigation with regard to the overt act of the petitioners and these petitioners have assaulted with chopper and stick and the injured has sustained two injures on both the sides and PM report also discloses regarding the nature of injuries and inflicted the injuries with deadly weapon and hence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail. 6. After having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and having considered the materials on record, this Court has to analyze whether this Court can exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 7. 6. After having heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and also learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and having considered the materials on record, this Court has to analyze whether this Court can exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 7. Having considered the complaint averments, the complaint discloses that accused No.1 is having illicit relationship with accused No.6 and accused No.2 is the relative of accused No.1 and specific allegation is made against accused No.2, i.e. petitioner No.1 herein has inflicted the injury with the chopper and accused No.3 who is the petitioner No.2 in this petition inflicted the injury with the stick and the injured died on the spot. The petitioners' counsel also brought to my notice the wound certificate of other injured witnesses who have sustained grievous injuries. 8. On perusal of the PM report, the cause of death is due to Hypovolemic and Neurogenic shock secondary to severe head injuries caused by i) sharp ii) hard and blunt 3) hard and hapezoid objects and also the injury on left eye measuring 5cmX3cmX2cm and on the back of skull two Hapoziod swelling on scalp on temporal region left side measuring 5cmX3cmX3cm and 5cmX4cmX2cm and on palpitation swelling with blood oozed out, on right side of occipital fracture measuring 5cmX2cm with bone crushed and brain herniated and on the right side of occipital there was a fracture measuring 5cm X 2cm with skull bone crushed brain part herniated and left side back of skull at temporal region. He has sustained two hapezoid swelling measuring 5cmX3cmX3cm. 9. After having taken note of the nature of injuries, the very contention of the petitioners' counsel that the deceased had sustained only single injury cannot be accepted and apart from that, there are eye witnesses who have also sustained grievous injuries and the incident was taken place at 1.30p.m., during day time and having considered the nature of allegations made in the complaint and presence of the eye witnesses and also looking to the nature of injuries, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in respect of these petitioners. The specific allegation made against these petitioners is that they have inflicted injuries with the chopper and stick on his head and the counsel appearing for the petitioners in his argument also relied on the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.101289/2018 granting bail in favour of accused Nos.4 and 5 and the same is not comes to the aid of these petitioners, since the overt act alleged against these petitioners is that they inflicted injuries with the deadly weapons with chopper and stick compare to accused Nos.4 and 5. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for bail having considered the nature of the offences and gravity of the offences. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is rejected.