JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Cr.No.217/2021 registered by Udayagiri Police Station for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., JLB Road, Mysuru in C.C.No..117/2022. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Mohammed Sadiq Khan, brother of the deceased, police registered a case against unknown persons on 13.10.2021. Subsequently, police recorded further statement of wife of deceased and statements of CW.9 and 10 and came to know this petitioner caused murder of deceased Hameed Khan in the wee hours i.e., on 12/13.10.2021 along with other accused persons. The police suspecting this petitioner and others, on 19.10.2021 recovered weapons and remanded to judicial custody. After investigation filed charge sheet. The bail petition filed by the petitioner before trial Court seeking regular bail was rejected. Hence, he is before this Court seeking regular bail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offences. He has been falsely implicated. Name of the petitioner not mentioned in the FIR or complaint. There is delay in recording statement of eye witnesses and even though statement of CW.2 - wife of deceased was recorded on the very same day, but she has not mentioned the name of the accused. After that, on 14.10.20221 she has mentioned name of the accused persons. Quarrel took place in respect of payment to be payable by the deceased to CW.11 and there is no motive or intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Statement of the eye-witnesses was recorded after two days of the incident. Even otherwise, statement of CW.2 as last seen was recorded. There is no eye-witnesses to the incident. There is no overt act against this petitioner except holding hands of the deceased. The weapons were already recovered. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has already been filed. The petitioner is in custody for more than 9 months. There are no antecedents against him. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court, if he is granted bail. Hence prayed for allowing the bail petition. 5. The weapons were already recovered. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has already been filed. The petitioner is in custody for more than 9 months. There are no antecedents against him. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court, if he is granted bail. Hence prayed for allowing the bail petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader has highly objected the bail petition and contended that there are two eye witnesses i.e., CWs 9 and 10 and their statements were recorded on the very next day of the incident. Further statement of the wife of the deceased also reveals that the petitioner along with others after planning to do away with the life of the deceased, committed the murder. There is common object attracted against the accused persons for having committed the murder of the deceased. The investigation has completed and charge-sheet has already been filed and if he is granted bail, he may commit similar offences. Hence, prays for dismissal of the bail petition. 6. Upon considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP and on perusal of the record, it reveals that admittedly, FIR was registered against unknown persons on the complaint of the brother of the deceased. Statement of CW.2 - wife of the deceased was also recorded on 12.10.2021 may be a wrong date. The incident took place on 13.10.2021 at 12.30 a.m. She has stated that on the date of the incident accused persons along with her husband went for drinking alcohol in regular place, where they normally used to sit after their work. She has also stated that on the date of incident at about 9.15 p.m. her husband came back to the house and told her that he will come back after informing his friends and thereafter he would accompany her to the hospital, as their son was unwell. At about 10.10 p.m. he came back and they went to the hospital. Further statement was recorded by the police on 14.10.2021. She has categorically named all the accused persons in her further statement. However, CWs 9 and 10 - eye witnesses also stated about the last seen of deceased along with all accused persons. Therefore, it clearly reveals that the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased. 7. Further statement was recorded by the police on 14.10.2021. She has categorically named all the accused persons in her further statement. However, CWs 9 and 10 - eye witnesses also stated about the last seen of deceased along with all accused persons. Therefore, it clearly reveals that the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons along with the petitioner and deceased were all friends. On the date of the incident, accused no.1 on the pretext of attending natures call and also to fetch match box from the deceased Hameed Khan caught hold of the neck of the deceased from behind and accused no.3 i.e., the petitioner herein caught hold of the hands of deceased. At that time accused no.4 and 5 caught hold of the legs of the deceased, accused no.1 by using the knife, stabbed the neck of the deceased from behind, immediately accused no.2 also took the machete used to cut meat, stabbed behind the neck, thereby committed the murder of the deceased and went away by threatening CWs 9 and 10 not to disclose the incident to anybody. After investigation police arrested this petitioner and weapons were recovered in his presence. 8. Of course as per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, weapons were recovered near the occurrence of incident in a open place said to be near a dilapidated building. But looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and the statement of eye witnesses i.e., CW.9 and 10, who categorically stated the overt acts of the petitioner herein and also other accused persons for having committed the murder of the deceased, I am of the view that, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of committing similar offences and also threaten and tamper the prosecution witnesses are not ruled out. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed.