JUDGMENT Mohd Fahim Anwar, J. - Heard. 2. Case diary is available with the Panel Lawyer. 3. This is repeat-second application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.405/2018, registered at Police Station Makroniya, Sagar for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. 4. Allegation of the prosecution are that on 14.10.2018 at about 10.00 p. m. on the information of Head Constable Omkar Singh Inspector R. S. Thakur has reached near Gambhira over bridge under the jurisdiction of P. S. Makroniya, Sagar and found some unknown person in badly injured condition, he was taken to hospital where his MLC was conducted and after some treatment concerning Doctor declared him to be dead. On that basis Merg intimation and Dehati Nalisi has been recorded. During the course of merg inquiry post-mortem of the deceased has been conducted and it was opined by the Doctor that he was dead due to the injuries caused to him by hard and blunt object and nature of death was found to be homicidal. During the course of investigation the deceased was identified as Rajesh Singh @ Ramji resident of Makroniya, Sagar. The applicant Shankar Lal Vishwakarma and co-accused Rajni Vishwakarma have been interrogated, they have admitted the commission of offence and given information regarding iron rod by which they have committed murder of the deceased and on the information of applicant said iron rod has been recovered. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent. He has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that statements of prosecution witnesses namely Rajesh Singh (P.W.1), Akash (P.W.2), Munshilal Rathor (P.W.3), Omkar Singh (P.W.4), Smt. Manisha (P.W.5), Dr. Saurabh Shukla (P.W.6), Dr. Mahipal Singh Thakur (P.W.7), Smt. Mamta (P.W.8), R. D. Upadhyay (P.W.9), Jyoti Kahirwar (P.W.10), Bhagwan Singh (P.W.11), Mohd Rauf Khan (P.W.12) and Anjali (P.W.13) have been recorded before the trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He is in judicial custody since 23.10.2018. The applicant is permanent resident of the address shown in the application. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 6. He is in judicial custody since 23.10.2018. The applicant is permanent resident of the address shown in the application. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the submission made on behalf of the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 7. Earlier application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 25.2.2019 passed in M. Cr. C. No.51549/2018. 8. Although it is argued on behalf of the applicant that the statements of most of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution but after perusing the statements of prosecution witnesses, I am of the considered view that it would not be proper to appreciate the evidence at this stage for grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this repeat application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant is hereby dismissed. 9. C. C. as per rules.