JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 192 of 2016, dated 7th December, 2016, registered under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P. 2. Status report stands filed. Record has also been produced, perusal whereof reveals that the petitioners has been arrested in the present case on 23rd May, 2018, for entering into criminal conspiracy with the main accused Vinay Kumar, for disappearing the dead body of the wife of Vinay Kumar, who was murdered by Vinay Kumar on 29th July, 2016. 3. Prosecution case in brief is that deceased Sharda Devi wife of Vinay Kumar (main accused) was living in her parental house, separate from her husband along with her two children. She was awarded maintenance by the Court from her husband (main accused Vinay Kumar). On 27th July, 2016, she had left her residence to receive the maintenance amount from her husband. Next date of hearing in the maintenance case was 2nd August, 2016, but she went on missing prior to the said date, whereupon her father had lodged the missing report and later on, a case under Section 365 of IPC was registered in Police Station Nagrota Bagwan. Later on, the case was handed over to the State CID and during investigation, on suspicion, polygraph test of accused Vinay Kumar was conducted to find clues from him, resulting into interrogation of Ashwani Kumar and Vinay Kumar and it was revealed that on 29th July, 2016, at about 7/7.30 PM, deceased Sharda Devi was taken by accused, to the cowshed of her sister, located at isolated place Muhaalkad Chahadi, where they consumed country liquor and thereafter, accused Vinay Kumar asked Sharda Devi to bring water from the nearby small canal and when she was fetching water, she was pushed and thrown into the canal by accused Vinay Kumar and after some distance he took out her dead body from canal and called his nephew (present petitioner) Ashwani Kumar and both of them had buried the dead body of Sharda Devi in the field. After some days, present petitioner Ashwani Kumar, again visited the spot and found that wild animals had removed some soil from the spot, as such during that night, both accused again visited the spot and disinterred the body and buried it again at different place after digging another pit. 4. On the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, challan under Section 302, 201, 120-B of IPC has been presented against the main accused Vinay Kumar, whereas, challan against the present petitioner has been presented under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 5. For the commission of offence under Section 201 of IPC, a maximum sentence provided under Code is 7 years. The offence under Section 201 of IPC is cognizable, but bailable and the offence under Section 120-B of IPC would be cognizable or non-cognizable and bailable or non-bailable, according to the offence, which is the object of conspiracy and punishment under Section 120-B of IPC, will also be according to the offence, which is the object of the conspiracy. 6. As is evident from the challan, presented in the Court, by the Investigating Agency, the petitioner has been subjected to the trial, for commission of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of IPC. Principles applicable to Sections 437 and 438 Cr.P.C. are also applicable for the consideration of a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Under Section 437 Cr.P.C., it is provided that the person detained for commission of any non-bailable offence, can be released on bail and the exception against the same has been provided in it, on the ground, if it appears to the Court on reasonable grounds for believing that he has been found guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life or he is a previous convict of an offence punishable with death imprisonment or life or imprisonment of 7 years or more or he had been previously convicted for offence or more occasions of a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more. The charge sheet presented against the petitioner does not refer involvement of the petitioner in any case as provided in exceptions under Section 437 Cr.P.C. 7. Undoubtedly, petitioner is involved in heinous crime. The charge sheet presented against the petitioner does not refer involvement of the petitioner in any case as provided in exceptions under Section 437 Cr.P.C. 7. Undoubtedly, petitioner is involved in heinous crime. However, his role cannot be equated with the role of the main accused Vinay Kumar, who has committed a cold blooded murder of his wife, to avoid the payment of maintenance and has caused the disappearance of evidence in a planned manner, with the help of the present petitioner/accused. Present petitioner/accused is nephew of the main accused and definitely, he was influenced by the main accused. Therefore, the present petitioner is to be treated on different footing, than the main accused. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and role of petitioner and also challan presented in Court against him, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in case FIR No. 192 of 2016, dated 7th December, 2016, registered under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P., if not required in any other case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 9. The bail shall be subject to further following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when required; (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (iii) That he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the trial; (iv) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected; (v) That the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner; (vi) That the petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the territory of India without information and he shall inform about his mobile/contact number and shall keep on informing about change of address/mobile/contact number, if any; 10. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 11. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 12. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and will strictly be confined for the disposal of this bail application. 13. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.