ORDER : This is a petition filed by petitioners 1 to 3 who are accused nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.09/2019 registered by Marihal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506, 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since from the date of their arrest, the accused are in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks that they may be enlarged on regular bail for the grounds urged therein. 2. Heard Sri Vijay K.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners who is appearing through video conferencing. But learned HCGP for the State in the Principal Bench representing the learned HCGP at Dharwad is present before court physically. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that one Smt. Renuka Patreppa Mallannavar filed a complaint alleging that her husband Patreppa Mallannavar was an agriculturist and their lands were situated near Patri Basavanna Road. Further, the land of Vithal Shivarayappa Mallari was situated at a distance and since three to four years, her husband Patreppa Mallannavar was cultivating the land of Vithal Mallari along with his brother Basavaraj on crop sharing basis. Both of them were residing as a joint family along with their wife and children. A villager named Basanagouda Patil used to give them his tractor for their agricultural work. On 19.01.2019, it is stated that deceased Patreppa Mallannavar went to the said field for letting water to the crops. It is further alleged that the said deceased Patreppa Mallannavar had made a telephonic call to his brother Basavaraj at about 7.00 p.m. and had told him that he was going to the field of Vithal Mallari along with the said Basanagouda Patil who owned a tractor, for ploughing his field with the tractor and that he would come home late. Later, the complainant was informed by her brother-in-law Basavaraj that deceased Patreppa Mallannavar would stay back at the field itself. Hence, the complainant and her family had dinner and slept that night at their house. However, the deceased had not returned home even in the early morning of 20.01.2019. 4. Later, the complainant was informed by her brother-in-law Basavaraj that deceased Patreppa Mallannavar would stay back at the field itself. Hence, the complainant and her family had dinner and slept that night at their house. However, the deceased had not returned home even in the early morning of 20.01.2019. 4. Later, at about 8.30 a.m. on 20.01.2019, a person of the said village named Shivanand Adiveppa Mallannavar had telephoned to her brother-in-law Basavaraj and informed him that some unknown persons have killed Patreppa Mallannavar and Basanagouda Patil and that their dead bodies were lying in the land of Vithal Mallari and the tractor was parked near their bodies. After her brother-in-law conveyed the said news, the complainant and all others went to the said field and saw their dead bodies and found that there were injuries on their neck and head and blood was oozing. Hence, she filed a complaint before the Marihal Police against unknown persons. 5. Subsequent to the registration of Cr.No.9/2019, investigation was taken up by the Investigating Agency who laid the chargesheet against the petitioners/accused nos. 1 to 3 that they have allegedly committed the murder of Patreppa Mallannavar and Basavanagouda Patil. Injuries were inflicted on their neck and also on the vital part of the head of her husband and blood was coming. Petitioners had some animosity with her husband Patreppa Mallannavar and Basanagouda Patil due to which the petitioners are said to have murdered them. But subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused, the I.O. has thoroughly investigated the case and conducted spot mahazar in the presence of Panch witnesses and so also recorded the statements of several witnesses. CWs12 to 16 are the eyewitnesses of the incident which is narrated in the substance of the chargesheet. 6. Subsequent to the laying of the charge sheet against the accused, the case has been committed by the committal court by passing an order as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.PC. Thereafter, the case in S.C.No.284/2019 is pending before the Court of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, and after framing the charge, the case is put on trial and also proceeding further against the accused by securing the witnesses who have been named in the charge sheet. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused submits that this is the fourth successive bail petition filed by the petitioners due to changed circumstances. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, and after framing the charge, the case is put on trial and also proceeding further against the accused by securing the witnesses who have been named in the charge sheet. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused submits that this is the fourth successive bail petition filed by the petitioners due to changed circumstances. He submits that the eyewitnesses in the case have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the said eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the trial of the case in S.C.No.284/2019 is at the fag end, and therefore, considering the changed circumstances and the developmental circumstance, the accused be released on bail as they are in judicial custody since from the date of their arrest. He further submits that the accused are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. On all the aforesaid grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the allegations made in the complaint filed by Smt. Renuka who is none other than the wife of the deceased Pattreppa Mallannavar. Patreppa Mallannavar was an agriculturist and their lands were situated near Patri Basavanna Road. Further, the land of Vithal Shivarayappa Mallari was situated at a distance and since three to four years, her husband Patreppa Mallannavar was cultivating the land of Vithal Mallari along with his brother Basavaraj on crop sharing basis. On 19.01.2019, deceased Patreppa Mallannavar went to the said field for letting water to the crops and he had made a telephonic call to his brother Basavaraj at about 7.00 p.m. and had told him that he was going to the field of Vithal Mallari along with the said Basanagouda Patil who owned a tractor, for ploughing his field with the tractor and that he would come home late. Later at about 8.30 a.m. on 20.01.2019, the complainant got information that some unknown persons have killed Patreppa Mallannavar and Basanagouda Patil and that their dead bodies were lying in the land of Vithal Mallari and the tractor was parked near their bodies. Some persons having some ill will or animosity with the complainant’s husband had committed the murder. Later at about 8.30 a.m. on 20.01.2019, the complainant got information that some unknown persons have killed Patreppa Mallannavar and Basanagouda Patil and that their dead bodies were lying in the land of Vithal Mallari and the tractor was parked near their bodies. Some persons having some ill will or animosity with the complainant’s husband had committed the murder. Hence, based upon her complaint, the case in Cr.No.9/2019 of Marihal P.S. came to be registered for offences under Sections 302, 506, 120B of the IPC. The accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased with means of Jambia and Koyata, which are dangerous weapons. That itself indicates that the accused had an intention to eliminate the deceased. Further, the Post Mortem report indicates that deceased Basanagouda suffered a chop wound over upper part of neck, a muscle deep chop wound, a cut lacerated wound across outer angle of left eye, whole of left ear irregularly chopped, muscle deep puncture wounds, etc. Further, as per the Post Mortem report of deceased Patreppa Mallannavar, he had suffered chop wound over right side neck, a muscle deep incised wound, a horizontal chop wound over middle of neck, a bore deep cut lacerated wound, multiple superficial incised wounds over forehead, nose, left cheek, and multiple small contusions over face and neck etc. Further, the Doctor had opined that the said injuries were inflicted by sharp to moderately sharp heavy cutting weapon. The aforesaid injuries inflicted over the person of the deceased itself indicates that the persons being the accused had intention to eliminate the deceased by hatching a criminal conspiracy. They had picked up a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted them with means of dangerous weapons such as iron rod and jambia and committed murder mercilessly. Therefore, the accused are not deserving even in this fourth successive bail petition merely because some of the eyewitnesses have been examined and they did not the support of the case of the prosecution. The accused have committed a heinous offence by committing double murder by using deadly weapons. If the accused are supposed to be released on bail, certainly there will be an adverse impact on the society. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP for the State and seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the accused. 9. If the accused are supposed to be released on bail, certainly there will be an adverse impact on the society. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP for the State and seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the accused. 9. It is in this backdrop of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this successive bail petition and so also the counter made by the learned HCGP for the State relating to the case in Cr.No.9/2019, whereby the I.O. has thoroughly investigated the case and laid a chargesheet against the accused in S.C.No.284/2019. Though the case of the prosecution revolves around the statement of the eyewitnesses viz., CWs12 to 16, the domain is vested with the Trial Court under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution and so also marking of several material objects secured by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. Based on the said evidence on the part of the prosecution, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused with all reasonable doubt. 10. It is the doctrine of criminal justice delivery system that merely because some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution turned hostile, it cannot be a ground for seeking regular bail by filing a successive bail petition and also to be termed as developmental circumstance or changed circumstance. The accused have committed double murder as already stated and they have inflicted injuries over the body of the deceased, which is reflected in the PM report. This is a successive petition filed by the accused seeking regular bail. There was a motive behind committing the murder of the deceased in order to eliminate them as found in the chargesheeted materials. 11. Though the power under this section is wide enough in order to exercise its discretion to grant bail to the accused, but involvement of the accused and so also commission of serious offences should be looked into, by test of reasonable grounds as laid down for consideration of the bail petition, either regular or even a successive bail petition. But certain guidelines are required to be maintained, such as: (i) the nature of accusation leveled against the accused. (ii) Nature of evidence in support of the accusation. (iii) The severity of the punishment which conviction will entail. But certain guidelines are required to be maintained, such as: (i) the nature of accusation leveled against the accused. (ii) Nature of evidence in support of the accusation. (iii) The severity of the punishment which conviction will entail. (iv) The accused tampering or attempting to tamper with the prosecution witnesses and so also obstructing the course of justice would be a very cogent as well as specific ground for rejection of the bail. 12. But in the instant case, the accused have committed double murder by choosing the vital part of the neck and also part of the head with means of deadly weapons of Jambia and Koyata and inflicted injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. Therefore, the accused are not deserving for bail even though they are urging changed circumstances in view of some of the prime witnesses who have been examined on the part of the prosecution have not withstood the versions of their statements. Appreciation of the evidence on the part of the prosecution is the domain is vested with the Trial Court. But this domain is vested with the prosecution as well as the Trial Court to facilitate the evidence as well as appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the accused are not deserving for bail even though they have filed this successive bail petition. 13. But in the instant case, these accused have committed double murder by inflicting injuries over the person of the deceased as reflected in the PM report. Therefore, if the accused are supposed to be released on bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society. The entire case even though revolves around the evidence of witnesses i.e. CW12 to 16, in order to arrive at a conclusion, it is the domain of the Trial Court to appreciate the said evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is changed circumstance or developmental circumstance in the case for grant of bail. The materials collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation are enough material to proceed with the trial of the case in respect of the offences leveled against the accused. 14. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is changed circumstance or developmental circumstance in the case for grant of bail. The materials collected by the I.O. during the course of investigation are enough material to proceed with the trial of the case in respect of the offences leveled against the accused. 14. Therefore, learned HCGP submits that if the accused are supposed to be released on bail, there would be certainly an adverse impact on the society, which cannot be overruled as well as lost sight of in view of the involvement of the accused. 15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the accused do not deserve to be released on bail in this fourth successive bail petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioners/accused nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.