JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Court under SC/ST (POA) Act, Belagavi in Criminal Misc.No.2146/2019 arising out of Marihal PS Crime No.01/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 452, 302, 506, 109, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, in S.C.No.134/2019. 2. Though notice to the complainant is awaited, Sri Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel made submissions. Since on the said submission, it appears that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. The above petition is taken up pending the service of summons on the complainant. More so, when the application for bail filed by accused Nos.2 and 4 in Criminal Petition Nos.101956/2019 and 102136/2019 have been rejected. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant has given a complaint alleging that he is residing with his family at Sulebhavi. His son Nagendra (deceased) used to go to building construction work. There was no cordial relationship between the deceased and Mahesh Ramachandra Murari (accused No.1), as they had quarreled in the Kalmeshwar Jatra. In pursuance of which accused No.1 had given a life threat to the son of the complainant (deceased). 4. The deceased was working under Sambaji Parasannavar as labour in house construction work as on the date of the incident i.e. on 01.01.2019 and after finishing his work, the deceased was washing his hands, at that time, accused No.1 came to the spot with some other persons and started quarreling with the deceased, abused him and gave a blow with a sword however the deceased at that moment escaped and went inside a shed. Accused No.1 and others broke open the door of the shed and started abusing the deceased. When the deceased started shouting, after hearing the noise nearby persons tried to rescue him but by then he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, accused No.1 and others threatened the other persons stating that if anybody informs the police about them, they will face similar consequence. When the deceased started shouting, after hearing the noise nearby persons tried to rescue him but by then he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, accused No.1 and others threatened the other persons stating that if anybody informs the police about them, they will face similar consequence. On investigation and submission of the charge sheet, it is seen that accused Nos.1 to 4 had committed repeated assaults on the deceased by using sword on account of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died. 5. In the complaint registered against accused Nos.1 to 7, there are specific allegations and overt acts which have been alleged against accused Nos.1 to 4. 6. Accused No.1 had filed Criminal Misc.No.2146/2019 seeking for bail which came to be rejected by the III Addl. District Sessions Judge, Belagavi vide its order dated 02.11.2019, observing that there are serious allegations which have made against the petitioner/accused No.1 and these offences are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and punishable for death or imprisonment for life. The trial Court was also of the opinion that if accused No.1 was released on bail, he may flee from justice and cause hurdle to the trial. Hence, the petition came to be dismissed. 7. Sri M.H.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 would submit that there is no motive on the part of the accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased. Though there are overt acts alleged against accused No.1 and there are no eye-witnesses and allegations of any earlier offences having been committed by the petitioner/accused No.1. Therefore, he should be enlarged on bail and he would comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 8. Learned HCGP would contend that it is not a fit case for the accused to be enlarged on bail. The accused Nos.1 to 4 have indulged in a brutal act of murder by using swords. They followed the deceased into a shed and committed the act. She, further submits that there are eye-witnesses to the crime, further more the weapons were seized from accused No.1. Therefore, she opposes grant of bail. 9. The accused Nos.1 to 4 have indulged in a brutal act of murder by using swords. They followed the deceased into a shed and committed the act. She, further submits that there are eye-witnesses to the crime, further more the weapons were seized from accused No.1. Therefore, she opposes grant of bail. 9. Having heard both the counsels and after having perused the charge sheet and the statement of the witnesses, it is seen that there are clear and categorical allegations which have made against accused No.1 and there are eye-witnesses who have given statements stating that the accused No.1 has assaulted the deceased with a sword. At this stage, it cannot be said that the accused was not involved in the crime. The offence committed being punishable with life imprisonment or death, and there being a possibility of the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses and or tampering with evidence, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected. Defences, if any raised by the petitioner in the above criminal petition can be raised by the petitioner during the course of trial before the trial Court. The observations made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of the above petition. The trial Court shall consider the matter before it without being prejudiced by the above observations.