Anuj Kumar Vs. State

the case dealt with an application under section 439 of the criminal procedure code, 1973, for grant of bail to the accused charged under section 302, 394 and 397 of the indian penal code, 1860 - the finger and palm prints of the accused were present in the house of the deceased and the disclosure of the accused had resulted in recovery of jewellery of the accused - it was held that the circumstances of the case were prima facie indicative of involvement of the accused in the heinous offence - thus the accused could not be granted bail - r.l. gupta, j.(1) the petitioner is being prosecuted under sections 302/ 394/397 read with section 34 indian penal code and section 27 of the arms act in fir no. 377/89 registered in ps trilok puri. he applies for bail. (2) i have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. the case against the petitioner is based on circumstantial evidence. smt. sushma saluja wife of sh. vijay kumar saluja was found murdered in then flat no. c-39, pocket iii, mayur vihar, delhi on 26.7.89. when the husband returned from office and did not find her in the house, he reported the matter to the police. it was at that time that the wife was found murdered in the house. the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. the first circumstance is that the petitioner and the co-accused ajit singh had worked as carpenters in the house of the deceased on the relevant date. their finger and palm prints were found in the bath room of the house. on the same date the petitioner got recovered jewellery belonging to the deceased from near siri fort stadium. (3) learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged recovery was from an open place and the ornaments were not put to any test identification by the prosecution. the second argument is that the hair collected from the spot were found to be dis-similar to the specimen hair of the petitioner . however, learned counsel for the state has refuted these submissions. he also submitted that the husband duly identified the jewellery belonging to his wife. (4) 4. i am of the view that the recovery of the ornaments at the instance of the petitioner on the same day as that of murder and also the presence of the finger, and palm prints of the petitioner in the both room are very grave circumstances appearing against him. it may be possible that ultimately the trial court may be of the opinion that the cumulative effect of all the circumstances appearing against the petitioner is not sufficient to connect him with the.....