Full Judgment
R L. Gupta, J.
(1) Petitioner is facing prosecution for offences under Sections 394/397/302/460/411 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code registered in Ps Trilok Puri, Delhi along with some others. He has applied for bail.
(2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 2,6.90 some unknown person informed the police that murder and robbery had taken place in flat No. 291, phase Ii, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. The police went there and r-corded the statement of Ashok Kumar Gupta. He stated that he and his wife Smt. Asha were employed in a Bank. They returned from the office at about 6.00 Pm that day and found his parents and child aged 4 years missing. The house was locked from out side. After waiting for their return in futile, the lock was broken open with the help of one Chandra and to their utter surprise blood-soaked dead bodies of his parents in one room and that of their child in bath room were lying. The goods in the house were also lying scattered.
(3) There is no direct evidence. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. One Rambir, Contractor had employed 3 co-accused in this case and he told the police that they did not come for work on the date of the occurrence. One Lakhvinder Mehta was also examined who informed the police that one Shanker and three other persons were seen by him entering the flat at about 11.00 Am on 2.690 from where the dead bodies were recovered. The police is also alleged to have recovered blood stained clothes of the deceased, blood of the deceased and also the blood stained knife at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner also got recovered a part of the looted property which was later on identified.
(4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that blood group on the clothes of the deceased persons does not tally with the blood group on the clothes and knife allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner. There is no doubt that this fact is prima facie borne out from the report of the CFSL. However, at this stage the fact of the petitioner being last seen along with others entering the flat on the date of the occurrence by one of the prosecution witnesses and also the recovery of a part of the looted property later on duly identified cannot also be over looked. He was attested on 10 6.90 and the recovery was made on that very day. These circumstances prima facie tend to involve him in this ghastly triple murder. At this stage, the Court is not to see if there is fool-proof evidence against the petitioner which will ultimately end in his conviction. It is sufficient at this stage if there is prima facie reason to believe that he has committed the offence. Prosecution evidence has not yet been recorded and if at this stage the bail is allowed to the petitioner, he is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited the case of Inderjit Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 1991 Cri.L.J.2l91. In that case the sole circumstance was of the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused. There was no other circumstance. This authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case because besides the evidence of being last seen a substantial part of the looted property was also recovered at the instance of the petitioner in pursuance to his disclosure statement. The petition is, thereforee dismissed.