By this petition the petitioner, a M.C.D. contractor, who is one of the accused in Sessions Case No. 75/97, FIR No. 340/96, P.S.Okhla Industri-al Area, under sections 364/302/201/216/411/120B/ 34, IPC seeks bail.The accusation against the petitioner is that he along with his associates, namely, Kamal Singh @ Shaily, Vibhor Singh @ Lovi, Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto, Dr. Hemant Kalra, Viney Kumar @ Vinu, Ravi Prakash @ Ravi @ Shard Gupta/Agarwal, Kamal Kumar @ Pinki and Jaindender Kumar Tyagi @ JK, were involved in the macabre crime in which three persons were murdered.The victims were Dr. Sunil Kaul, proprietor of Personal Point, and his two employees Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma.As per information gathered during the investigation, several criminal cases are pending against him.Prosecution has also brought to the fore the accusation of alleged ill will between Vijay Prakash and one Zile Singh contractor.There was a murderous attack on him for which case F.I.R. No. 298/95 was registered.The involvement of Ravi Prakash and petitioner Subhash Gupta was suspected in the incident.Subhash Gupta in the year 1995 joined Personal Point and was allegedly attracted towards Sujata Saha.Sujata Saha spurned the advances of Subhash Gupta.Subhash Gupta suspected Sujata Saha to be involved with Dr. Kaul and this, according to the counsel for respondent, led to the showing of the seeds of conspiracy resulting in the murders.In the evening of June 6, Dr. Sunil Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma visited the office of accused Subhash Gupta, located at M.C.D. Office, Okhla, as Dr. Kaul wanted to expand his business and for this purpose was expecting loan from him.It is from this place that three of them were kidnapped by the accused and before doing that they were drugged which is indicated by the recovery of empty ampoules of calmpose injections from the office of the petitioner and the statement of one Madan Lal recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure according to which three of them while coming out of the office of the petitioner and walking towards the cars were being supported by the accused.There was a third car, Maruti 800, which had a U.P. number.In the BMW car, driven by Subhash Gupta, besides him and the above said two ladies, accused Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto and Kamal Kumar @ Pinki were also seated.Maruti 1000 was driven by accused No. 2 Kamal Singh @ shaily, and besides him and Dr. Kaul, accused Ravi Prakash and accused Dr. Hemant Kalra were also seated, Maruti 800 was driven by accused Vibhor Singh @ Lovi.All the three cars left the office of the petitioner one after the other.On the night intervening 6th and 7th June 1996, Nitin Gupta, son of the petitioner Subhash Gupta, lodged an F.I.R. No. 340 of 1996 under section 365 I.P.C. at P.S. Okhla as the latter had not returned home.He along with the F.I.R. produced a driving licence of Dr. Kaul which was found by him in the office of Subhash Gupta.The police registered the FIR and visited the office of Subhash Gupta where torn cheques of Rs. 6 lacs each were seized along with the broken ampoules of calmpose and torn pieces of ransom note in the handwriting of Subhash Gupta were found.The ransom note was pieced together which conveyed that the petitioner had been kidnapped and the kidnappers were demanding a ransom of Rs. 50 lacs.On 7th June 1996 the car of Dr. Kaul was found abandoned at Hodal.On the same day at about 3.30 P.M. dead body of Dr. Kaul was found in a field at Hodal.The body bore two bullet injuries.On 9th June 1996 dead bodies of Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma were recovered in a highly decomposed state at Bhind, Moraha M.P. On 10th June 1996 a call was received at the house of Subhash Gupta that he was in Bombay in Hotel Leela.On receipt of this information, a police party under the charge of Inspector Balwinder Singh was sent to Bombay.The petitioner and his BMW car were found by the police party at the above said hotel.The BMW car of the petitioner was inspected at Bombay.As per the report of the CFSL expert at Bombay, blood stains on the mat of the car were found."If you not become mine I murdered you and same time I made to suicide myself."As per the opinion of the hand writing expert the diary is written in the handwriting of the petitioner.It was allegedly written by the petitioner during the time Sujata Saha had gone to South India on tour along with her parents.The obsession of the petitioner for Sujata Saha is evident from the fact that he along with his younger brother Anil Gupta and Arvind Malik, a Junior Engineer in the M.C.D., followed her to South India in his Toyota Car.In April 1996 Sujata Saha along with a friend and her husband Ajay Nagpal, whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Agency under section 161 Cr.P.C., went to Shirdi for pilgrimage.Subhash Gupta sent accused Ravi Prakash and Dr. Hemant Kalra to Bombay by air.The duo from Bombay proceeded to Shirdi by car and stayed at Hotels Sharan and Guraia under assumed names.The hotel records were seized by the Investigating Agency.The apathy of Sujata Saha towards the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the petitioner had presented air tickets to her and her family for undertaking the trip to the South India but the same were not utilised by her and on the contrary the tickets were torn to pieces which were recovered from her drawer during investigation.From 2nd May 1996 to 4th May 1996, accused Ravi Prakash, Pinky, Shaily were staying in Mohan Hotel, Ashok Vihar Delhi.Thereafter they shifted to Centaur Hotel, Delhi, where they were joined by accused Deepak Das and witness Saurav Bhatt.As per the respondent the record of the cellular phone of the petitioner, which was seized, shows that during this period the petitioner was in touch with the above said accused persons.Statement of one Balbir Singh, contractor, was recorder under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in which it has come that huge money was handed over by the petitioner to Shaily during this period.Besides, he is also stated to have seen the arrival of Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Gupta to the office of Subhash Gupta.Even mithlesh was sent to Lajpat Nagar to get apples and packets of fruit juice.When he returned he was again sent to run another errand.This time he was asked to get bottles of Bisleri.On his return he found the office to be empty.Mithlesh also speaks about the fact that earlier Subhash Gupta had given him instructions not to let Gyan Bir enter his office after he brings sweets from Haldiram.According to him he acted on the instructions of Subhash Gupta and took the sweets from Gyan Bir had brought the sweets and left the office for his house, Mithlesh was sent to Lajpat Nagar.ORDER Anil Dev Singh, J.The expert opined that the stains found in the car were of human blood.From the dicky of the car, fibres were recovered and as per the report of the CFSL at Bombay the fibres were from the bed sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was wrapped.The investigation mounted by the Investigating Agency culminated in the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner and nine others accused, namely, Kamal Singh @ Shaily, Vibhor Singh @ Lovi, Vijay Mohan Sharma @ Minto, Dr. Hemant Kalra, Viney Kumar @ Vinu, Ravi Prakash @ Ravi @ shard Gupta/Agarwal, Kamal Kumar @ Pinki and Jaindender Kumar Tyagi @ JK.All the accused are standing their trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It may be pointed out that this application was filed on the ground that he was suffering from depression and his condition warranted his release from jail.Having failed to secure the bail from the trial court the petitioner has moved the instant petition seeking bail.Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his bail application argued that the petitioner himself was victim of kidnapping by Ravi Prakash and his associates and was not in any manner involved in the murders.It was pointed out that pieces of ransom note and two torn cheques of Rs. 6 lacs each were found from the office of Subhash Gupta by the police.He further submitted that the kidnapping of the petitioner along with the three deceased is also proved from the fact that when he was examined on 11th June 1996 at Bombay he was having the following injuries:-Radish Blue bruise with swelling measuring 8 cm x 3 cm on the back of chest situated on centre.2. Radish blue bruises with swelling and pain measuring 8 cm x 3 cm on the back of the right chest - present vertically.3. Injection prick mark present over both elbows.He submitted that as per the opinion of the doctor the injuries were of a duration of more than 48 hours and hat the injuries 1 and 2 were caused with blunt force and injury No. 3 was caused by an injection prick.Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was in love with Sujata Saha and there was no reason for him to kill her.He further pointed out that he had already advanced money to Dr. Kaul for which he was getting good return and this being so, there was no reason to get rid of Dr. Kaul.He further canvassed that torn pieces of ransom note were deliberately left by the petitioner to give evidence to his story that he was also kidnapped along with the deceased persons.Learned counsel invited my attention to the material on record to support the prosecution story.It has also been revealed during investigation that on May 1, 1996 the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in cash from Oriental Bank of Commerce at Paharganj.Investigation shows that on 5/6th June 1996 accused Ravi Prakash, Shaily and Pinki stayed in Mohan Hotel, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi, for the second time.According to Ashok Maniktala, whose statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., the boy was 6' 3" and on the information given by the petitioner was studying for his I.A.S. He also stated that on enquiry he came to know that the boy was related to some officer in the M.C.D. The prosecution claims that reference in the above statements is obviously to Ravi Prakash.Maniktala has also stated that he will be able to recognise the person who was staying in the house of the petitioner.Statement of one Gyan Bir, who was employed as Beldar by the petitioner, was recorded by the Investigating Agency during investigation.Gyan Bir, in his statement under section 161 if Cr.P.C., alluded to the fact that on the evening of 6th June 1996 he was asked by the petitioner to bring sweets from the shop of Haldiram located at Badarpur even though he had suggested to the petitioner that he could get the sweets from nereby Chawla Sweets.As per the suggestion of the prosocution, Gyan Bir was sent to the far off shop of Haldiram so that he does not see as to what was taking place at the petitioner's office between the accused on the one hand and Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Gupta on the other.The respondent suggests that the conduct of Subhash Gupta a shows that he did not want his chowkidar and Beldar to be witnesses to what was taking place in his office between the accused persons and the deceased.One Madan Lal, Kabari, who was passing by the office of Subhash Gupta and another person.He stated that the two ladies were made to sit in a grey coloured car.He also saw that similarly another person was brought out from the office of Subhash Gupta with the help and assistance of two persons and was made to sit in the back seat of a white coloured Maruti car.He also refers to the fact that the cars left on after the other.As per him the grey car was being driven by Subhash Gupta.A strong submission was made on behalf of the respondent that the theory that Subhash Gupta was also kidnaped with Dr. Kaul, Sujata Saha and Deepa Sharma as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments is totally discounted by the statement of Madan Lal.According to Ashwini Saini, he is known to Ravi Prakash who had told him that he was a sales tax inspector in Delhi.On arrival, Ravi Prakash Introduced Subhash Gupta at his officer to Saini and one of the ladies who was in jeans as the wife of Subhash Gupta: Saini was told that one of their cars had broken down and that they would rest in his house by the time their car was repaired.As per Saini, he left his house for his work and told Ravi Prakash that in case he was not back by the time they left, the key of the house should be given to the neighbour.Saini is stated to have returned at 7.30 in the evening and found that Ravi Prakash and his associates were ready to leave.He, however, did not find the two ladies and enquired about them.He was told by Ravi Prakash that they had already left in the other car and that the accused would be meeting them at the petrol pump.Saini also stated that after a few days he read about the murder of the two ladies and also saw their photographs in a newspaper.He also read the news relating to the murder of Dr. Kaul.In order to find out the details he is stated to have gone to Baroda and met accused Deepak Das, who was known to him and also to Ravi Prakash.Deepak Das gave the address of Ravi Prakash, Kamal Kumar and two other associates who were staying in Hotel Sweet Dream.Saini refers to the fact that Ravi Prakash on seeing him felt ashamed for having betrayed his confidence and stated that he had murdered the two ladies at the behest of the petitioner.Blood stains were found in the BMW car of the petitioner and as per the opinion of the expert of the C.F.S.L. Bombay, the mats of the car were stained with human blood.Some fibres were also found from the boot of the car and as per the report of the C.F.S.L. the fibres were from the same bad sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was wrapped.Saini in his statement confirmed that after the accused left he found one bed sheet to be missing.The torn pieces of the bed sheet in which Sujata Saha's body was found was identified by Saini as the one found missing from his house.As Per the prosecution, another clinching factor which proves the complicity of the petitioner in the crime is that he had employed one Vikram Singh, Managing Director of a detective agency, to tail Sujata Saha.Vikram Singh in his statement has pointed out that the petitioner had specifically told him on 5th June 1996 as she was to remain in her office till 6 P.M. on that day and was to meet him thereafter.Learned counsel for the respondent made a strong plea that calling off the surveillance for 6th June 1996 when the deceased were kidnapped is crucial.In case the surveillance was not called of it would have been difficult to implement the plan.Having regard to the above material, ex facie the petitioner cannot claim that he along with the deceased was kidnapped by the other accused persons and was not privy to the crime.

Cited provisions: Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code