( 1 ) ON 10. 11. 1998 Sanjay Kumar Sharma, the complainant who was running a travel agency, lodged a complaint that one Ravi called him on telephone that his (complainant s) travel agency had provided a car to him in Manali with one driver Bittoo and he requested for providing a Tata Sumo car. The complainant sent it on 30. 10. 1998 with driver Jagdev. The driver informed him that they were moving about in Delhi and on the next day they would go to Rajaethan. But nothing was heard for next 4/5 day. On inquiry he also found that no person by the name of Ravi was living in Preet vihar address which was given on telephone. He suspected that the driver had run away with the vehicle. Case was registered at P. S. Samaipur Badli. On 01. 9. 2000 satish Kumar and Abhishek Babu were arrested by a police officer in a case registered at P. S. Seelampur on the secret information that they wanted to sell stolen motorcycle. During interrogation they disclosed that they had committed theft of the motorcycle in complicity with their assaociate Rahul @mohan Shorab and sudhir Mohan Jha about 15-20 daye before from Preet vihar. On 01. 10. 2000 the confeaaional atatement of the accuaed Sudhir Mohan Jha was recorded in which he disclosed that about two and a half yeara back a Tata sumo, original number of which wae not remembered to him, but at preaent was carrying a forged number plate dl-IV-3443, waa stolen by him with his accomplice Ashu and Ravi (the petitioner) from Shakarpur and Ravi and he were running that Tata Sumo car as taxi at New Delhi railway Station. The vehicle had gone out of station and was expected to come back next morning. On his disclosure statement the Tata Sumo car in queation was recovered and necessary information was sent to p. S. Samaipur Badli where the vehicle waa seized. The petitioner was also arrested.

( 2 ) THE petitioner hae applied for bail. The arguments of his counsel are that the only incriminating evidence in possession of the prosecution is the alleged disclosure statement, the confessional statement, the confessional statement of the co-accused and also a power of attorney under which the vehicle in question was allegedly sold. It was argued that the occurrence in the instant case had taken place in 1998 whereas this petitioner was arrested in September, 2000 and there is no proximity between the death of the complainant s driver Jagdev who was sent with Tata Sumo vehicle on being requisitioned by Ravi and the recovery of vehicle. According to him there was no evidence to connect this petitioner with the murder of Jagdev.

( 3 ) APP on the other hand strongly opposed the grant of bail to this accused as the investigation shows hie involvement in a heinous crime. He also contended that the statement of Narender Kumar, the power of attorney which had been executed by this petitioner as well as pointing out memo of the place where the murder of jagdev had taken place have fully established the complicity of the petitioner in the crime.

( 4 ) I have given careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar. It is true that the case was registered in 1998 but did not make any headway. The complainant had suspected that his own driver jagdev had run away with the vehicle. However, during the investigation of another case of a different police station the accused made disclosure statement which ultimately led to the arrest of the petitioner and recovery of the vehicle. The petitioner made a confessional-cum-discloaure statement. He also led to the police party for pointing out of the place where the murder of Jagdev was committed. The Tata Sumo seized was being run under a fake registration number and it was being run under the power of attorney executed by this petitioner. Moreover the statement of narender Singh showed that Manish, brother of the petitioner was plying an autorikshaw owned by the witness and during this period the petitioner used to visit his brother with Tata sumo in question