ORDER : The petitioner has sought for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.105/2019 of Dhannura Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. The charge sheet allegation against the accused/petitioner is that on 02.07.2019, at about 7.30 a.m., the accused committed the murder of his grandmother by inflicting multiple injuries upon her with a knife since she did not give him her retirement benefit money. The offence alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though CWs.2 to 5 have shown to be an eye witnesses to the alleged incident, but, there is a delay of 48 hours in recording their statement which shows some cloud in the case of the prosecution. He also submits that the charge sheet paper at this stage does not disclose as to whether the accused was apprehended by the police. Further submitting that the petitioner/accused is an young boy, aged 21 years and is languishing in jail since the date of the alleged incident, learned counsel prays for allowing the petition. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader who has filed his statement of objection to the petition submits that it is daylight murder in a public place by grandson of the deceased. The culprit was caught red-handed along with the weapon and motorcycle which were used by him in the commission of alleged crime. The postmortem report also corroborates the case of the prosecution. The eyewitnesses have given their statement before the Investigation Officer. In such circumstances, the petitioner does not warrant the relief as prayed. 5. The complainant in this case is the daughter of the deceased, who incidentally is the mother-in-law (father’s sister) of the present petitioner. In her complaint, she has stated that one Shivasharanappa (CW.12) the neighbour of the deceased informed her over the telephone at 7.40 a.m., on 02.07.2019, that the present petitioner/accused had committed the murder of his grandmother in their presence after quarreling with her for her retirement benefit money. The complainant has further stated the informant also stated to her that himself joined by Sunilkumar S/o Raghunathra (CW.14) and Vithal S/o Tulasiram Mankoji (CW.15) have caught hold of the accused in the spot. The complainant has further stated the informant also stated to her that himself joined by Sunilkumar S/o Raghunathra (CW.14) and Vithal S/o Tulasiram Mankoji (CW.15) have caught hold of the accused in the spot. The complainant appears to have also stated that immediately she rushed to the spot and saw that the present petitioner who is her elder brother’s son was held by CWs.12, 14 and 15 and it was the petitioner who had committed the murder of her grandmother. After completion of investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet against the accused/petitioner for the alleged offences. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet papers at this stage would go to show that the Investigating Officer claims to have recorded the statement of several witnesses including CWs.12 to 15. CWs.12, 13, 14 and 15 claim to be an eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they are shown to have given their statement in uniform manner that, while they were seeing the accused/petitioner after quarreling with his grandmother, demanding money from her, took out a knife from his motorcycle which he has already brought with him and inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased by causing instant death. The postmortem report has noticed seven injuries on the neck and other parts of the body of the deceased. The doctor has opined that the death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. Thus, the alleged statement of eyewitnesses before the Investigating Officer about inflicting multiple injuries by the accused appears to have been corroborated by postmortem report as could be seen at this stage. 7. Though the statement of alleged eye witnesses i.e., CWs.12 to 15 are shown to have been recorded on 04.07.2019 when the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 02.07.2019 at 7.30 a.m., but, by such mere alleged delay of about two days in recording their statement itself at this stage cannot be lead to suspect their statement enabling the accused/petitioner to get release on bail. In the circumstances of the case, when the petitioner was said to have been caught red handed and when he alleged to have been committed the alleged offence in broad daylight in a public place, I am of the view that though the charge sheet has been filed, considering the heinous nature of the offence, the petitioner/accused does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.