Molid. Shamin ( 1 ) THIS is an application by one Pritpal Singhalto be released on bail. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and his son i. e. co-accused Suresh Singhal are the owners of a house situated at Behraenclave, New Delhi. They wanted to dispose the same of. Deceased Shyamsunder and Krishan Lal and injured Hans Raj and his brother Raj Kumaralias Raju were carrying on the business of property dca. hng under the nameand style of M/s. Vijay Properties at Bahadurgarh (Haryana ). S/shri Tilakraj, Tarsem Lal and Sarvar Lal all residents of Gurdaspur (Punjab) wantedto purchase the abovesaid property and a deal was struck for the purchaseof the said property for a consideration of Rs. 35 lacs. However, the saidconsideration was not passed on in full to the sellers and the same wasalleged to have been taken by the abovesaki property dealers, yet they werebringing pressure on the seller to execute the sale deed in respect of the saidproperty in favour of the proposed buyers. The sellers were, however, notready to submit to their demands. Deceased Shyam Sunder and his brotherraju approached the petitioner and his son on March 3, 19 91 and tried topressurise them to execute the sale deed, but they were not ready for thesame till they received the complete consideration. It led to a flaming row. Subsequently to resolve the abovesaid dispute the matter was referred for anamicable settlement to one Lala Harkishan Dass. With the said end in viewa meeting was held at the office of Lala Harkishan Dass at Nangloi at 4 p. m. on 4/03/1991. The deceased Shyam Sunder and Krishan Lal andinjured Hans Raj and R. aj Kumar reached the abovesaid office of Lalaharkishan Dass on 4/03/1991 at the abovesaid time. The petitioneralongwith the other two accused persons reached thereat 5. 10 p. m. Onesubhash Mahajn an acquaintance of Lala Harkishan Dass also reachedthere in his Fiat car which he has parked outside the office of Lalaharkishan Dass and left the same unlocked. There was exchange of some hotwords in between the deceased Shyam Sunder and accused Suresh Singhal. Accused Suresh Singhal is illeged to have taken out his revolver and firedat deceased Shyam Sunder, ll led to a stampede and all the persons presentexcept Hans Raj and Raj Kumar ran for their safely. As per the additional. There was exchange of some hotwords in between the deceased Shyam Sunder and accused Suresh Singhal. Accused Suresh Singhal is illeged to have taken out his revolver and firedat deceased Shyam Sunder, ll led to a stampede and all the persons presentexcept Hans Raj and Raj Kumar ran for their safely. As per the additional. statement of Shri Raj Kumar when accused Suresh Singhal started firing atshyam Sunder deceased, then Shri Raj Kumar and deceased Krishan Lal andinjured Hans Raj Tried to catch hold the ahove -named accused. Accusedsuresh Singhal thereupon exhorted his father i. e. Shri pritpal Singhal tofinish them all. Co-accused Roshan Lal caught hold of Shri Raj Kumar. Accused Suresh Singhal and the petitioner thereupon fired at deceasedkrishan Lil and Hans Raj. The petitioner asked co-accused Roshan Lalto bring his rifle from his Maruti Car. Shri Krishan Lal fell in front of theshop of Harkishan Dass and injured Hans Raj fell at the corner of Nihalvihar colony. Shri Raj Kumar after having been released by Roshan Lalleft the place of occurrence and went to his house at Bahadurgarh to informthe other members of his family. ( 3 ) IT has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that thepetitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. The information with regard to the present occurrence was given to thepolice as many as four times on 4/03/1991 i. e. at 5. 25 p. m. (D. D. 16a),5. 50 p. m. (D. D. No. 17), 6. 45 p. m. (D. D. No. 1sa) and 6. 48 p. m. (D. D. No. 19a ). Yet the name of the petitioner does not find a mention inany of the above reports. The learned Counsel has thus contended that itproves the innocence of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE next contention put forward for by the learned Counsel forthe petitioner is that Shri Raj K. umar, brother of the deceased persons, waspresent at the spot, yet he escaped unhurt without even a scratch on hisbody. This goes to show that Public Witness Raj Kumar was not even present at thespot. ( 5 ) IT has next been urged by Mr. K. . This goes to show that Public Witness Raj Kumar was not even present at thespot. ( 5 ) IT has next been urged by Mr. K. . G. Bhagat, learned Counsel forthe petitioner, that Lala Harkishan Dass who is alleged to be a witness ofsuch an alarming occurrence wherein two persons are alleged to have losttheir precious lives and third one was seriously injured, yet he sat tight withhis lips and lodged the report at 7,45 p. m. at PS Nangloi. This goes toshow that the FIR lodged ,it 7. 45 p. m. is a result of due deliberation. Thus,it raises all sorts of suspicions with regard to the, occurrence. ( 6 ) THE report of the Ballastic Expert does not help the case of theprosecution inasmuch as there is no report of the fact that the bullets werefired from the weapons alleged to have been recovered from the petitionerand his co-accused Suresh Singhal. The statements of Sarvar Kumar,tarsern Lal and Tilak Raj were recorded on 24/04/1991 though theoccurrence is alleged to have taken place on 4/03/1991. Public Witness Lalaharkishan Dass has not deposed to anything about the petitioner. ( 7 ) LEARNED SPP tor the State Mr. K. K. . Sud on the other hand, hasargued with great zeal and fervour that there is ample evidence against thepetitioner in the form of the statement of Public Witness Lala Harkishan Dass wholodged the FIR inasmuch as his name finds a mention therein. The presenceof Lala Harkishan Dass Public Witness is proved at the spot inasmuch as his namefinds a mention in all the documents by the prosecution agency. Then thereis the statement of Shri Hans Raj who is alleged to have sustained seriousinjuries at the hands of the petitioner and his co-accused. He has verycategorically stated in his statement before the police as well as betore thecourt that the petitioner and Ins co-accused namely Suresh Singhal firedfrom the revolver. i The revolver is alleged to have been recovered from thesearch of the petitioner Pritpal Singha. l on 14/03/1991. Then there isthe statement of Shrt Raj K. umar recorded on 4/03/1991. He has alsoalleged in his statement before the police that accused Suresh Singhal andhis father i. e. Shri Pritpal Singhal and one more person came to the officeof Lala Harkishan Dass. l on 14/03/1991. Then there isthe statement of Shrt Raj K. umar recorded on 4/03/1991. He has alsoalleged in his statement before the police that accused Suresh Singhal andhis father i. e. Shri Pritpal Singhal and one more person came to the officeof Lala Harkishan Dass. There was some exchange of hot words which ledto a flaming row whereupon accused Suresh Singhal took out the revolverfrom his pocket and shot at his brother Shyam Sunder. As soon as he andhis brothers tried to catch hold of Shri Suresh Singhal, Shri Suresh Singhalexhorted his father Shri Pritpal Singhal to finish them all whereupon thepetitioner and Suresh Singhal started firing as a result of which Kishan Lal,shyam Sunder and Hahs Raj sustained serious injuries. Shyam Sunder andkishan Lal succumbed to the injuris. Then there is the most importantstatement of Public Witness Hans Raj who himself was injured. He has fully supportedthe statement of Public Witness Raj Kumar. His statement was not recorded on thedate of occurrence as he was seriously injured and was recorded later onwhen he recovered from the injuries alleged to have been sustained at thebands of the accused persons. ( 8 ) BESIDES the above statements there is the statement of Shri Tilakraj who has also corroborated the version as set out in the statement of PWRaj Kumar and Public Witness Hans Raj. ( 9 ) IN the above circumstances and keeping in view the gravity of the offence where two precious lives were lost, I do not think the present case is a fit case for bail. I do not see any force in the present application. The same is hereby rejected.