JUDGMENT Mohammad Nawaz, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to enlarge him on bail in connection with a case registered at Kamakshipalya Police Station in crime No.93/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed. Trial is pending in S.C.No.1487/2016 on the file of 55th Addition City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused is innocent. He was arrested on 26.06.2016 and since then he is languishing in judicial custody. Five witnesses are examined before the trial Court. Out of them, PW.3 to PW.5 have not supported the case of prosecution. He submits that there is delay of five hours in lodging the complaint. Only on suspicion the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused. He submits that there is no motive whatsoever for the petitioner to commit the murder and now in view of material witnesses turning hostile, the detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is voilative of Article 21 of the Constitution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra V/s Central Bureau of Investigation , (2012) 1 SCC 40 has contended that Gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail to an accused. Accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted. Rather than to keep him under detention for an indefinite period, he can be granted bail subject to conditions. He further contends that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment. The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at his trial by reasonable grant of bail. 5. The learned counsel would also contend that in deciding a bail application the delay in concluding trail also should be taken into consideration. Now the accused is in judicial custody for the last four years and therefore, he submits that by imposing conditions for securing his presence before the trial court the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. 5. The learned counsel would also contend that in deciding a bail application the delay in concluding trail also should be taken into consideration. Now the accused is in judicial custody for the last four years and therefore, he submits that by imposing conditions for securing his presence before the trial court the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. The learned counsel has also relied on the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4933/2015 dated 11.08.2015, Crl.P.No.5569/2015 dated 08.09.2015, Crl.P.No.898/2015 dated 30.04.2015, Crl.P.No.100564/2020 dated 10.07.2020 and Crl.P.No.102408/2019 dated 05.08.2020 and submits that since the material witnesses have turned hostile, the detention of the accused in judicial custody for an indefinite period will lead to miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there are 23 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Five witnesses have been already examined. Even though PW.3 to PW.5 have not supported the prosecution, PW.1 and PW.2 have supported in material particulars. He further submits that there are other material witnesses to be examined before the Court. He submits that the petitioner has not been cooperating with the trial of the case and he has declined to cross-examine the witnesses now already examined before the trial Court. Hence he submits that at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and thus hamper the case of prosecution. Accordingly, seeks to reject the petition. 8. In a nut shall, the case of the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased were working in a restaurant namely 'Shyam Uphar' run by CW.1. On 06.03.2016 the accused asked deceased Nagaraju @ R.Hanumantharayappa to lend him some money so as to visit his native place. However, the deceased refused to part with any money. Annoyed by this, when the deceased was sleeping inside the hotel at about 4.30 p.m., accused dropped a big grinding stone on his head and committed his murder. 9. Admittedly the trial is in progress. Out of the charge sheet witnesses, five witnesses are already examined. It is stated that PW.1 and PW.2 have supported the case in material particulars. However, the defense has failed to cross examine the said witnesses seeking time to cross-examine them. It is also to be noted that CW.2 Kariyappa is the prime witness. Admittedly the trial is in progress. Out of the charge sheet witnesses, five witnesses are already examined. It is stated that PW.1 and PW.2 have supported the case in material particulars. However, the defense has failed to cross examine the said witnesses seeking time to cross-examine them. It is also to be noted that CW.2 Kariyappa is the prime witness. His statement discloses that he is an eye witness to the incident and he has seen the accused committing the murder by dropping a grinding stone on the head of the deceased. The said witness is yet to be examined. He is none other than a co-worker in the hotel where the petitioner was working. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the material witnesses have turned hostile is not correct. In the event of release of the petitioner on bail then there are all chances that he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 10. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision referred supra has also observed that each case has to be decided on its own merits. Seriousness of the charge is also one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications. 11. At this stage there is a prima-facie case made out against the accused for having committed an offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment of the life. For the reasons noted supra, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the following: ORDER Petition is dismissed.