Amod Kumar vs.state ( Nct ) of Delhi

Amod Kumar vs State ( Nct ) of Delhi

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 09, 2018

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1216888

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1216888
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Aug 09, 2018
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amod Kumar

Respondent

State ( Nct ) of Delhi

Excerpt

.....in the month of april. as per the investigation, the complainant was hospitalised. he was admitted in medanta hospital on 19.04.2018 and discharged on 25.04.2018. on 21.04.2018, the fateful day, as per the complainant, the petitioner was in charge of the cash collected. he handed over the keys to one employee shailender and got the cash counted which was only rs.12 lakhs. shailender duly reported to the complainant that only rs.12 lakhs were available. subsequently, it transpired that rs.35 lakhs were missing, consequent to which, the complaint was lodged.5. learned app for the state submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain the whereabouts of the cash and to recover the same. bail appln. 1626/2018 page 2 of 3 6. learned app for the state further submits that notice to the petitioner to join investigation could not be issued as his whereabouts are not known and he was not even traceable either at delhi or at his native place in uttar pradesh.7. keeping in view of the averments as well as the record, without commenting upon the merits of the case, i am of the view that the request of the learned app for the state for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, is not unjustified.8. in view of the above, i am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.9. the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.10. order dasti under the signatures of the court master. august09 2018 st sanjeev sachdeva, j bail appln. 1626/2018 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + BAIL APPLN. 1626/2018 Judgment delivered on:

09. 08.2018 AMOD KUMAR versus STATE ( NCT ) OF DELHI ........ Petitioner

..... Respondent Mr. B.S. Chaudhary, Advocate. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner

: For the Respondent: CORAM:-

"HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA Mr. Raghuvender Verma, APP for the State. SI S.K. Gupta, Spl. Staff North Mr. Rajesh Chhetri and Ms. Meenakshi Rawal with complainant in person. JUDGMENT0908.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

(ORAL) 1.... Petitioner

seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.117/2018 under Sections 4
IPC, Police Station Lahori Gate.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner was the cashier and in charge of the cash of the complainant as an employee. It is alleged that, on 21.04.2018, the petitioner stole cash amounting to Rs.35 lakhs from the shop of the complainant and left BAIL APPLN. 1626/2018 Page 1 of 3 Delhi and went to his home town in Uttar Pradesh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as there is nothing to show that the petitioner was in charge of the cash and stole Rs.35 lakhs from the shop of the complainant.

4. Learned APP for the State submits that the investigation has revealed that the complainant was in charge of the cash of the Company dealing in dry fruits business and the daily collection of cash was several lakhs of rupees. The Investigation has further revealed that substantial amount of cash was collected in the month of April. As per the Investigation, the complainant was hospitalised. He was admitted in Medanta Hospital on 19.04.2018 and discharged on 25.04.2018. On 21.04.2018, the fateful day, as per the complainant, the petitioner was in charge of the cash collected. He handed over the keys to one employee Shailender and got the cash counted which was only Rs.12 lakhs. Shailender duly reported to the complainant that only Rs.12 lakhs were available. Subsequently, it transpired that Rs.35 lakhs were missing, consequent to which, the complaint was lodged.

5. Learned APP for the State submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain the whereabouts of the cash and to recover the same. BAIL APPLN. 1626/2018 Page 2 of 3 6. Learned APP for the State further submits that notice to the petitioner to join investigation could not be issued as his whereabouts are not known and he was not even traceable either at Delhi or at his native place in Uttar Pradesh.

7. Keeping in view of the averments as well as the record, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am of the view that the request of the learned APP for the State for custodial interrogation of the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, is not unjustified.

8. In view of the above, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

10. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. AUGUST09 2018 st SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J BAIL APPLN. 1626/2018 Page 3 of 3

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2018 Same Parties Amod Kumar vs State ( Nct ) of Delhi Same Subject Land Acquisition