ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by accused under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, the Cr.P.C.) for granting regular bail in Crime No. 107 of 2020 registered by Parasurampura Police Station, Chitradurga, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 28-8-2020, Sri. Rajashekar, son of Meenakshamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed a complaint alleging that, there was family dispute between his family and petitioner’s family. The deceased had gone to coolie work to the land of Hampanna and while coming back, she was murdered by the petitioner. Immediately, knowing about the incident, he rushed to the spot and found that his mother was lying in pool of blood. When he enquired with co-workers, they informed that the petitioner committed murder of his mother with machete and sickle. Based upon the complaint, the Police arrested the petitioner and after interrogation, he was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged and he has been falsely implicated. Even though, there are eyewitnesses to the incident, but they never speak about the motive for commission of the offence. The eyewitnesses have stated that the petitioner came in a motorcycle, carrying two weapons in hand and assaulted with two weapons, which is not at all possible at a time. Eyewitnesses have stated that they were standing at the time of assault, but they have not rushed to the spot and avoided the assault. Though in the F.I.R., the complainant has stated that there is animosity between their families, but there is no specific mention as to how the petitioner is related to the deceased. The previous petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, after filing of the charge-sheet. Now, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Father of the petitioner is no more. The petitioner has to take care of his uncle, who is aged more than 80 years and suffering from last stage of Cancer. The previous petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, after filing of the charge-sheet. Now, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Father of the petitioner is no more. The petitioner has to take care of his uncle, who is aged more than 80 years and suffering from last stage of Cancer. The petitioner is the only male person in the family. The statements of the witnesses are recorded in stereotype manner, which is not believable. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that, the offence is heinous one. The petitioner has committed the murder and there are ten eyewitnesses to the incident. The weapons, used for commission of the offence, have been seized by the Police. The bloodstained clothes recovered by the Police also connect the petitioner with crime. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the petition. 6. Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the record, it goes to show that, admittedly, there are ten eyewitnesses to the incident, who have deposed that the petitioner came in a motorcycle and committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting with machete and sickle. Of course, none of the witnesses have stated the motive for committing the murder. The complainant also stated in the F.I.R. that, there is animosity between the families, but he has not stated about the actual motive for committing the offence. No doubt, the motive plays a dominant role in a case purely based upon the circumstantial evidence. All ten eyewitnesses have stated that, the petitioner came in a motorbike, assaulted the deceased and committed her murder. The motive loses its importance when the eyewitnesses have spoken about the commission of the murder. 7. Though none of the witnesses came to rescue the deceased or obstruct the petitioner from assaulting, but the same may be due to fear as most of the eyewitnesses are women folk. Therefore, the presence of eyewitnesses on the incident spot cannot be doubted at this stage without impeaching their evidence in the cross-examination. All ten eyewitnesses have categorically stated that, the petitioner came in the motorbike and assaulted the deceased with two weapons. Therefore, the presence of eyewitnesses on the incident spot cannot be doubted at this stage without impeaching their evidence in the cross-examination. All ten eyewitnesses have categorically stated that, the petitioner came in the motorbike and assaulted the deceased with two weapons. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the only son to entire family and in that regard, genealogical tree of the family is produced. From the genealogical tree, it is seen that, most of them are aged and women and the petitioner is the only male person. The petitioner’s uncle is said to be suffering from last stage of Cancer at Shankara Hospital, Bengaluru and the presence of the petitioner is required for his family members for providing treatment. However, considering the family background and medical treatment to be provided to the uncle of the petitioner itself cannot be a ground for granting bail to the petitioner in a heinous crime like murder. When there are ten eyewitnesses and they have categorically stated about the overt act of the petitioner for having committed the murder of an innocent woman, the question of showing any sympathy to him in respect of his family background is not warranted. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of he committing similar offences and tampering with the prosecution witnesses are not ruled out. Apart from this, there are chances of son of the deceased attacking the petitioner by way of taking revenge is also not ruled out. Therefore, I feel, it is not a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.