JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.12/2019 of Halavagilu Police Station registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity). 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt.Mangalamma, w/o Matturu Basavarajappa of Haluvagilu village of Harapanahalli taluka, has filed a complaint stating that her husband had a brother by name Matturu Ningappa, who had a wife and three sons and all are living in a separate house doing agriculture work and the house of Ningappa-deceased is situated behind the complainant's house. Ningappa is having own tractor and he is using the same personally. Two years back, Ningappa was cultivating the land which was belonging to one Gururaj, s/o Hemageri Kambali, by his own tractor. The accused is the brother-in-law of Gururaj. When Ningappa was cultivating the land, the accused along with 4 other persons came to the land wherein Ningappa-deceased was cultivating and asked to stop the work. The accused assaulted Gururaj Kambali and therefore the said Gururaj Kambali filed a complaint before Haluvagilu Police Station against the petitioner/accused and others. It is alleged that Ningappa was a witness against the accused. That on 22.02.2019 at about 4.00 pm Ningappa was returning to his village after giving evidence in the Harapanahalli Court against the petitioner/accused and before Ningappa reached his house, the family members of the deceased had gone to Mailarlingeshwar fair. On the said day at about 5.00 pm, the accused rushed to the house of the deceased and searched for him but at that time, Ningappa was not available in the house and therefore, the accused returned abusing said Ningappa saying that he will finish him. On the same day at about 9.00 pm, the petitioner/accused brought an axe in his motor bike bearing registration No.KA.17/L-0351 and at that time, Ningappa was engaged in talking over his mobile with someone sitting on a katta in front of his house, smoking, and at that time, the accused rushed with an axe with an intention to kill Ningappa and immediately assaulted the Ningappa on left side of his neck with an axe and Ningappa fell down. The said Ningappa was shifted to Harihar Government Hospital in an ambulance at about 10.15 pm and after the Doctor examined him, reported that Ningappa was dead. A complaint came to be registered in Crime No.12/2019 against the petitioner/accused for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 23.02.2019. The petitioner moved bail application in SC No.5027/2020 and the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hospete) rejected the said bail application by order dated 10.06.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Smt. Mangalamma in the complaint stated that she witnessed the incident but in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has stated that she has not witnessed the incident. It is his further submission that as per the complainant, the incident has taken place near the house of the deceased but in the sketch prepared by the PWD Engineer, the house of the deceased is not shown near the spot. It is his further submission that in the inquest mahazar, the Doctor has first seen the dead body on 22.02.2019. It is his further submission that CWs.12 to 15 are stated as eyewitnesses to the incident but on looking to their statements, they have stated that the incident had taken place on 22.02.2018 and therefore, they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. It is his further submission that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.02.2019 and investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that CW-1-complainant is not an eyewitness. CWs.12 to 15 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. It is her further submission that motive for the accused to kill the deceased is that the deceased gave evidence in a criminal case against the petitioner/accused. It is her further submission that CWs.12 to 15 have witnessed the petitioner/accused assaulting the deceased with an axe on his neck. It is her further submission that the weapon used by the accused has been seized at his instance under panchanama. It is her further submission that CWs.12 to 15 have witnessed the petitioner/accused assaulting the deceased with an axe on his neck. It is her further submission that the weapon used by the accused has been seized at his instance under panchanama. It is her further submission that as per postmortem report, there was an incised wound measuring 3"x11/2" present over left side of the neck, lacerated wound measuring 2"x1/2" over back of neck and lacerated wound measuring 11/2" x 1/4" over back left side of neck. It is her further submission that the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, has opined that death is due to hemorrhage shock as a result of injury to major blood vessels on neck. It is her further submission that if the petitioner is granted bail, in the similar way, he will threaten the witnesses and may also assault them and the witnesses with fear will not give evidence against the petitioner/accused. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. 7. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are: "(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused." 8. The petitioner/accused and others are facing criminal case wherein the Ningappa-deceased was cited as a witness. Ningappa gave evidence on 22.02.2019 in the said criminal case against the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused and others are facing criminal case wherein the Ningappa-deceased was cited as a witness. Ningappa gave evidence on 22.02.2019 in the said criminal case against the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused enraged by Ningappa giving evidence against him, on same day itself, assaulted Ningappa over his neck with an axe and caused injuries. CW-1 is the complainant and she is not an eyewitness to the incident. CWs.12 to 15 in their statement have stated that they are the neighbours of the deceased Ningappa and they have witnessed the incident of the petitioner/accused assaulting the deceased with an axe on his neck. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that CWs.12 to 15 in their statement have stated that the incident has taken place on 22.02.2018 but the alleged incident has taken place on 22.02.2019. Therefore, CWs.12 to 15 are not eyewitnesses to the incident. Merely because there is mistake in mentioning the year in the statement of CWs.12 to 15, it cannot be said that they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. Trial has been commenced and evidence of some witnesses has already been recorded. The petitioner is of such nature that if he is granted bail, he may also commit similar offence of assaulting the witnesses of this case. Therefore, there is threat to the witnesses of the present case, if the petitioner/accused is released on bail. 10. On looking to the entire charge sheet papers, there is prima facie case against the petitioner/accused for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The said offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.