The self-sufficient evidence of recoveries and motive was central to the court's decision in denying bail to the accused.

P.S. Teji, J.

1. By this common order I propose to dispose of the aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), wherein the petitioner – Om Prakash was initially charged with the offence punishable under Section 365 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ÍPC’) vide FIR No. 2306/14 registered at Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi and the petitioner – Subhang @ Subhankar was charged with the offence punishable under Section 279/304A of IPC vide FIR No. 1566/14 registered at Police Station Narela, Delhi. Ultimately, both the FIRs were clubbed together and the charge sheet was filed under Section 364/302/34 of IPC against the accused persons and the both the petitioners were charged with the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. Accused Om Prakash @ Pandey was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC.

2. The facts of two incidents made a chain for consolidating the two registered FIRs into one trial. In brief, the prosecution case is as under:-

“On 05.12.2014, Smt. Kamla, mother of one Manoj (since deceased) lodged a missing report of his son Manoj vide DD No.11B with Police Station Mangol Puri, Delhi, and accordingly FIR No. 2306/2014 under Section 365 IPC was registered. On 15.12.2014, Shri Mohan Lal, father of the deceased Manoj had given a statement to the police suspecting the role of the petitioner – Om Parkash @ Pandey in the kidnapping of his son and hiding him at some unkown place. Simultaneously, on 05.12.2014 upon an information regarding an injured person lying at Mansha Devi Road, Near Singhu Border, Narela Road, Narela, Delhi, another FIR 1566/2014 under Section 279/304A of IPC was recorded in Police Station Narela. After the demise of the injured – Manoj, the petitioner - Om Parkash @ Pandey was arrested.

As per prosecution, the petitioner - Om Parkash @ Pandey was last seen with the deceased by one Smt. Padma at Mangol Puri.

Upon disclosure statement of petitioner – Om Parkash @ Pandey, two co-accused persons namely Bhavnesh @ Bhima and Subhang @ Subhankaran were also arrested.

During investigation, recovery of weapon of offence, being plug pana was recovered from the petitioner - Om Parkash @ Pandey and a knife was recovered at the instance of petitioner – Subhang @ Subhankar from the Railway Fatak.

Post Mortem Report of deceased Manoj was conducted and the body was found with two incised wound on his person which were caused by sharp edged weapon and one reddish colour bruise on the left side of the forehead of the deceased and the said forehead injury, consequent upon blunt force impact to the head, was opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.”

3. Let us first deal with the petition filed by the petitioner - Om Parkash @ Pandey.

4. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued the case and contended that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner - Om Parkash @ Pandey and he has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC only on the mere suspicion raised by the father of deceased on 15.12.2014. As regards the prosecution witness – Smt. Padma, it is contended that she has been fabricated by the prosecution as a last seen evidence, who had stated in her statement that she had last seen the present accused with the deceased in Mangolpuri. It is further contended that the said witness – Smt. Padma has made representations to the higher police officers stating that she had never seen the petitioner with the deceased on 04.12.2014. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of other family members of the deceased only after recovery of dead body of the deceased Manoj and upon coming to know about the registration of FIR No. 1566/2014 under Section 279/304A of IPC, Police Station Narela, Delhi. To buttress his argument, counsel for the petitioner submitted that no witness h