SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 439, Cr.P.C., petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 171/2001 under Sections 365/201/420/468/471/302/120-B, IPC, P.S. Khazoori Khas, Delhi.

(2.) Prosecution allegations in brief are that on 13.7.2001, one Chattar Singh lodged a missing report about his son Satish Kumar; efforts to trace him did not succeed. On 29.10.2001, a case under Section 365, IPC was registered. During investigations, on suspicion petitioner was arrested and was interrogated. Investigations revealed that petitioner along with his servant Shiv Balak had taken away the deceased in Maruti Zen, which he had bought from the deceased on 30.6.2001 On the way, Shiv Balak held the deceased from behind and petitioner cut his neck and threw him near Chandi Road, Baghpat. It is further the case of the prosecution that dead body was dumped in fields in the area of PS Baghpat. The villagers located the body; police was informed and case under Sections 302/201, IPC was registered at PS Baghpat. Despite efforts, dead body was not identified and the same was cremated. Bloodstained clothes of the deceased were deposited in the malkhana. On the disclosure statement of the petitioner, gold chain, two gold rings and mobile phone were recovered from the persons to whom these were sold/ pledged. It is alleged that petitioner sent the car to the workshop and statement of the owner of the workshop was recorded who has stated that blood stains were found on the seat of the car. On being asked, petitioner claimed that his finger was cut. At the instance of the petitioner, car, which was sold by forging papers, was also recovered and it was found to have some blood stains. Prosecution allegations are that motive of the crime was arrest of petitioner's uncle Om Prakash under Section 107/151, Cr.P.C. at the instance of the deceased earlier. Learned APP for the State submits that 25 witnesses have been examined and delay in the trial is not on account of the prosecution.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contesting the facts submits that allegations against the petitioner are false. It is argued that clothes of the deceased were already recovered by the police at Baghpat, therefore, recovery of the clothes cannot be deemed to be at the disclosure statement of the petitioner. There is no evidence to show that the gold chain and rings of the deceased were pledged by the petitioner. The statement of the goldsmith was of no consequence. Learned Counsel further argued that recoveries were not in pursuant to the disclosure statement and that recoveries were first made and then planted on the petitioner. Learned Counsel strongly placed reliance on the orders dated 14.12.2004 and 26.4.2005 passed by this Court granting bail to co-accused Sanjay and Om Prakash.