JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, Judge Present bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with case FIR No. 25 of 2013 dated 14.11.2013 registered under Sections 302, 392 and 120-B IPC in Police Station Pooh District Kinnaur Himachal Pradesh. 2. It is pleaded that applicant is not having any past criminal record and further pleaded that Investigating Agency has impleaded the applicant due to ulterior purpose. It is pleaded that no recovery is to be effected from the applicant and no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody. It is further pleaded that present case is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is pre-eminently incomplete. It is pleaded that applicant will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by Court and applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner. Prayer for acceptance of bail application sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report case under Section 302 IPC stands registered against the applicant in P.S. Pooh District Kinnaur H.P. vide FIR No. 25 of 2013 dated 14.11.2013. There is recital in police report that Gompa temple is constructed below 3 K.m. from National Highway No. 5 near Spiti river under a big rock. There is recital in police report that there is no residential locality nearby the Gompa temple. There is recital in police report that dead body of Priest Lamba was found and rope was tied in the neck of deceased Lamba. There is further recital in police report that on 13th and 14th November 2013 during night period theft was committed in the Buddhist Gompa (Temple) and culpable homicide amounting to murder of Priest was committed and idols kept in the temple were stolen. There is recital in police report that there was conversation between mobile Nos. 9805938921 and 9459679166. There is further recital in police report that on 13th and 14th November 2013 during night period theft was committed in the Buddhist Gompa (Temple) and culpable homicide amounting to murder of Priest was committed and idols kept in the temple were stolen. There is recital in police report that there was conversation between mobile Nos. 9805938921 and 9459679166. There is further recital in police report that accused is owner of mobile No. 9805938921 and mobile took into possession vide seizure memo by I.O. There is further recital in police report that applicant has given disclosure statement on dated 28.01.2014 that applicant along with co-accused Balbir and Himal engaged a Scorpio vehicle on rent from Kandaghat on the pretext to bring labour and thereafter committed the criminal offence and also stolen three idols of Mahatma Buddha and also stolen silver and Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) from Gompa temple. There is recital in police report that all accused persons mixed some intoxicated substance in sweets and caused the death of deceased person by giving him wine when he became unconscious. There is further recital in police report that other co-accused Balbir is also arrested. There is further recital in police report that third co-accused Himal is still to be arrested in present case. There is further recital in police report that challan has been filed in Court of learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Reckongpeo on dated 26.4.2014. There is further recital in police report that applicant is resident of Nepal and if applicant is released on bail then trial of case would be adversely effected. Prayer for rejection of bail application is sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail application:- 1. Whether bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of anticipatory bail application? 2. Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant that applicant is innocent and applicant did not commit any criminal offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when the case shall be disposed of on merits after giving due opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that investigation is complete in present case and challan has also been filed and no recovery is to be effected from applicant and on this ground applicant be released on bail is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration). Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. In the present case applicant is facing the grave charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder which is the gravest form of criminal offence. Keeping in view the gravity of offence it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release the applicant on bail. If applicant is released on bail at this stage then interest of State and general public will be adversely effected and trial of the case will also be adversely effected. 8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant that there is no eye witness in present case and present case is based on circumstantial evidence and on this ground applicant be released on bail is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that criminal offence can be proved by prosecution by way of two modes. (1) Direct eye witness (2) Circumstantial evidence. By way of proving criminal case through circumstantial evidence is permissible under criminal law. There is no provision of law that all criminal offences should be proved by prosecution by way of only direct eye evidence. 9. (1) Direct eye witness (2) Circumstantial evidence. By way of proving criminal case through circumstantial evidence is permissible under criminal law. There is no provision of law that all criminal offences should be proved by prosecution by way of only direct eye evidence. 9. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that keeping in view the gravity of criminal offence against the applicant bail application filed by applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. be rejected is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The applicant is facing grave offence of criminal charge i.e. culpable homicide amounting to murder. Court is of the opinion that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then trial of case will be adversely effected. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No. 2 Final Order 10. In view of my findings upon point No. 1 bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. All pending application (s) if any also disposed of.