Preliminary investigation in the theft of heritage furniture from Le Corbusier Centre at Sector 19 has revealed that it was a well-planned robbery in which role of an insider is also suspected. It appears that the robbers had done proper homework before striking at the centre, said the police.
Two tables and eight V-shaped cushion chairs worth several lakhs in international market were stolen September 23. The police investigation revealed that the robbers had broken lower portion of the door for unbolting the door for their entry.
The police probe further revealed that they had bolted the door from inside in the same way for not leaving any clue as lot heritage furniture was lying in the centre. The investigation revealed that a window glass was broken and lying near the centre and it was initially suspected that the robbers had entered through the window, which was not the situation.
The police said, “During investigation, it surfaced that entering through window is not possible. The glass broke while the thieves were lifting the furniture or to mislead the police in the case. No pieces of broken glass were recovered from inside the room, whereas the broken glass pieces were lying on the outer side. This reveals that the glass was broken from the inside.”
The police said had the robbers broken the window glass from the outside to make entry, the shattered glass pieces would have been recovered from the inside the room from where the articles were stolen.
Meanwhile, questions were being raised over role of the UT administration and local police, as only three private security guards were deployed to guard valuable heritage furniture. Of which, two of the security guards remained on duty during daytime, while there was only a single security guard deployed at night. A police official, seeking anonymity, said if the furniture was so costly, the administration should have made a proper security arrangement around the centre.
Multiple entries, no boundary wall
It has come to light that there is no boundary wall around the centre. A private security guard said it was impossible for a security guard to keep a check on the premises as it was open from all the sides. The security guards are present on the front gate most of the times. But in the theft case, robbers had taken away the articles from the backside of the centre. He said the guard could not patrol around the building the whole night. “Had the boundary wall constructed, there were less chances of theft at the centre,” he added.
Police suspect insiders’ role
The police said they were recording the statements of the centre staff as the police suspects that the robbery operation was carried out in such a way which implies that someone knew how to unbolt the door. The police said the articles were taken away on a four-wheeler and it appeared that they had stationed the vehicle near the backside of the door.
No CCTV footage, no fingerprints
A police official, a member of the investigating team, said no CCTV cameras were installed at the centre or nearby building. “Had they informed the police in time, fingerprints could have been taken. They had informed the police when they had touched doors and other articles lying inside the centre, due to which the police failed to take fingerprints, he said.