JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case registered vide FIR No. 183 of 2021, dated 01.09.2021, under Sections 302 and 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on 25.6.2021, three persons namely Pawan Kumar, Hem Raj (petitioner) and Krishan Lal were at place Kohli on ‘Thatta Prashar Road’ in connection with collection of stones for construction purposes. On 26.6.2021, another person named Praveen Kumar also joined them. Accordingly, all the above noted four persons stayed at Kohli in tents. They all consumed alcohol. During night, Pawan Kumar and Praveen Kumar fell down from a cliff and as a result, breathed their last. 3. On 01.09.2021, Smt. Dayabanti, mother of deceased Praveen Kumar submitted a written complaint to the police alleging therein that on 15.8.2021, a meeting of local residents was convened and the complainant had made inquiries from Hem Raj (petitioner) and Krishan Lal regarding the truth of the facts, which had resulted in death of Pawan Kumar and Praveen Kumar. She further informed that during such inquiry, Hem Raj (petitioner) and Krishan Lal made disclosure of true facts and had narrated that Hem Raj (petitioner) had altercation with the deceased persons and they had fallen from the cliff as a result of push being applied on them by Hem Raj (petitioner). 4. The case was registered and investigation carried out. Police found sufficient material to submit final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. recommending trial of the petitioner for offences under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. 5. Petitioner was arrested on 4.9.2021. He is under trial. As per petitioner, ten prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been implicated on a false and concocted story. The delay in lodging the FIR itself is evident of falsity of the allegations. Petitioner has already suffered custody since 4.9.2021. He is permanent resident of Village Mehni Tehsil Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the course of justice. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him. 7. Petitioner has already suffered custody since 4.9.2021. He is permanent resident of Village Mehni Tehsil Sadar Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the course of justice. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him. 7. On the other hand, the prayer for bail has been opposed by learned Senior Additional Advocate General. It is submitted that the accusations against petitioner are of very serious nature. He has acted in a cruel manner and deserves no leniency. The trial is still going-on and material witnesses are required to be examined. In case of release of petitioner on bail, there is every likelihood that the petitioner may impress upon and win-over the prosecution witnesses. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the entire investigation records. 9. This Court, at this stage, is required to balance the rights of the petitioner on one hand and the public interest on the other. The test of objectivity is to be applied. 10. The allegations against petitioner are of serious nature. In case the charge as framed against the petitioner is proved, he can be subjected to severe punishments. In addition to the seriousness of accusation, it can also be noticed that the prosecution is placing reliance on the extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before the members of the village community. Thus, in the instant case, petitioner is not only facing accusation of commission of serious and heinous crime, but also there is prima-facie evidence against him by way of extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before many persons. 11. The prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of persons before whom the petitioner is said to have made extra judicial confession. Some of such witnesses have been examined and few still remain to be examined. Petitioner has placed on record the copies of statements of the witnesses recorded so far. From the perusal of statements of few of the witnesses so examined, it cannot be said that the allegation of petitioner having made extra judicial confession is not without substance. The above observations have been made only to primafacie assess the seriousness and gravity of allegations against petitioner and also the material collected by the investigating agency in support thereof. From the perusal of statements of few of the witnesses so examined, it cannot be said that the allegation of petitioner having made extra judicial confession is not without substance. The above observations have been made only to primafacie assess the seriousness and gravity of allegations against petitioner and also the material collected by the investigating agency in support thereof. 12. Noticeably, the witnesses before whom the extra judicial confession was made by petitioner belong to the same village to which petitioner belongs and in such event, it is highly probable that in case of release of petitioner on bail, such witnesses may be influenced and won-over by the petitioner. The release of petitioner on bail, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, will not be in the interest of justice. 13. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. Any observation made in this order 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 hereinabove.