JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL 1. IN this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner is seeking grant of bail from custody, in relation to FIR No.RC0962012S0005, under the provisions of Sections 120 B, 364, 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, CBI, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. Petitioner was arrested on 27.3.2013. His bail application stands dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 8.8.2013. Uninfluenced of the same, the present petition is being considered and disposed of on its own merits. 2. IN support of the petition, Mr. Aminder Singh, Advocate has made the following submissions (i) petitioner is not named in the FIR; (ii) no recovery is effected from him; (iii) there is no eye witness to the incident; (iv) no motive for committing the crime is established against the petitioner; (v) since the dead body has not been recovered, in the absence of recovery thereof, there can be no presumption that Vijender Singh (deceased) has died; and (vi) during trial, wife of Vijender Singh (deceased) has admitted that in the morning, following the date of occurrence of the incident, deceased had made a telephonic call to one of his friends, which only falsifies the prosecution case. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has opposed the petition, inter alia, on the ground that petitioner is involved in a heinous crime of not only murdering the deceased (Vijender Singh) but also concealing and destroying evidence in that regard. 3. AS per the case of prosecution, deceased Vijender Singh had given his poultry farm on rent to accused Lalit Kumar @ Lovely. Certain issue with regard to payment of rent and electricity charges arose between the landlord and the tenant. Accused Lalit Kumar, without clearing the same, removed his belongings from the poultry farm with the help of co accused Jagpal Singh and others. At that time, deceased was threatened by these persons. On 19.5.2010, a quarrel took place between the deceased and Jagtar Singh (father of accused Jagpal Singh), as a result of which Jagpal Singh also nursed a grudge against the deceased. On 4.6.2010, accused persons had come to the house of the deceased and threatened him. Following day, i.e. 5.6.2010, Rashpal Singh alias Guddu, Gurvinder Singh @ Anshu and others also gave beatings to the deceased. On 4.6.2010, accused persons had come to the house of the deceased and threatened him. Following day, i.e. 5.6.2010, Rashpal Singh alias Guddu, Gurvinder Singh @ Anshu and others also gave beatings to the deceased. Matter was reported by deceased Vijender Singh to the police at Police Station, Nalagarh. 4. ON the morning of 5.5.2010, deceased left home to fill diesel in his tractor. Since then, the deceased was untraceable, though his tractor was found parked in Joghon. Bhupinder Singh, father of the deceased, lodged report with the police about the said fact. Police recorded DD entry. On 11.7.2010, Smt. Satveer Kaur, wife of deceased Vijender Singh also filed a complaint with SHO, Police Station, Nalagarh. Smt. Satveer Kaur, wife of deceased Vijender Singh, also filed a petition (CWP No.8367 of 2011) before this Court and vide order dated 11.1.2012, the Court directed the matter to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. INVESTIGATION revealed that all the accused persons, namely Jagpal Singh, Lalit Kumar @ Lovely, Purshotam Singh @ Bittu (petitioner herein), Rakesh @ Navrangi hatched a conspiracy and killed Vijender Singh. Thereafter, they tied heavy iron weight to the dead body and dumped it in the canal. The tell tale signs and evidence of murder were removed and destroyed. Investigation only pointed out complicity of all the accused persons and none other. 6. IT is not in dispute that challan stands presented in Court and trial is in progress. Out of 64 witnesses, ten witnesses already stand examined and dates for examining other witnesses stood fixed. Non recovery of dead body, in itself, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. (Lal Bahadur and others versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 4 SCC 557 ; Prithipal Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 10 ; and Rama Nand and others versus State of H.P. (1981) 1 SCC 511 ). 7. FURTHER, I have carefully perused the record, including the testimonies of the witnesses examined so far. It is not the requirement of law that name of the accused is necessarily required to be mentioned in the FIR, nor absence thereof would render the prosecution case to be doubtful. It is also not the requirement of law that only after some recovery is effected from accused, his complicity in the crime can be said to be established. 8. It is also not the requirement of law that only after some recovery is effected from accused, his complicity in the crime can be said to be established. 8. WE are dealing with a case of conspiracy, where a man is alleged to have been killed by the accused persons. Prior animosity and motive, is already on record in the shape of reporting of earlier incident, by father of deceased Vijender Singh with the police. Prima facie, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. I am of the considered view that some material is there on record, showing complicity of the accused. In the statement, recorded under the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused is specifically mentioned. Prima facie, even in the evidence recorded so far, witnesses have deposed, which eventually may establish guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. 9. CAREFUL and complete perusal of testimony of of Smt. Satveer Kaur (PW 2), upon which heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, would negate the contention and the fact that in the morning of 7.6.2010, deceased had telephonically called his friend. 10. STILL further, it is seen that there are various specific allegations with regard to overt acts of omission and commission on the part of the present petitioner. It is seen that trial is in progress and as such, in such a heinous crime, indulgence is unwarranted. At this juncture, prima facie, it cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner. There is a deep rooted conspiracy, affecting public interest, which needs to be viewed seriously. 11. WHILE granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 12. TAKING all the aforesaid facts into consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present petition is dismissed. 12. TAKING all the aforesaid facts into consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the present petition is dismissed. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Petition stands disposed of.