JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime No.398/2017 of Mahalakshmipuram Police Station, Malleshwaram Sub-Division, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 302, 148 and 147 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner along with other accused persons, due to prior enmity, committed murder of Andros. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence and recovery is also made at the instance of this petitioner i.e., dragger used to inflict injuries on the chest and his back. 4. The allegation against this petitioner is that, he inflicted injuries on one Andros on his back and also on his chest. Accused No.1 inflicted injuries with machete on his head. After committing murder, they left the place in an autorickshaw. It is not in dispute that the deceased Andros belong to downtrodden community i.e., SCST caste. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that incident has taken place in the year 2017 and the petitioner was arrested immediately and trial has not yet commenced. He would also submit that the petitioner is languishing in the jail, without the trail being commenced. The counsel would further submit that accused Nos.3 and 5 have already been enlarged on bail and the petitioner is also entitled for bail, on the ground of parity. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that deadly weapon was recovered at the instance of this petitioner which was used for inflicting injuries on the vital part of the deceased i.e, chest and his back. He would further submit that the CCTV footage also reflects commission of murder by this petitioner. This material prima facie shows that this petitioner committed murder. 7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the bail granted in favour of accused Nos.3 and 5 is only on the ground that they held the victim. But, here is a case where the petitioner inflicted injuries on the vital parts of the deceased i.e., chest and also on his back. But, here is a case where the petitioner inflicted injuries on the vital parts of the deceased i.e., chest and also on his back. Apart from that, CCTV footage is also collected to show that the petitioner himself committed murder of the victim. Even though the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the CCTV footage and the recovery made at the instance of this petitioner particularly, overt act allegations made against this petitioner that he inflicted injury with dragger on the chest, I do not find any ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is rejected.