Shyam Sundar Singhania vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Shyam Sundar Singhania vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 July, 2022

1. This is a petition seeking quashing/setting aside of the order dated 06.02.2021 passed in FIR No. 39/2019 by learned ASJ, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi. It is also prayed that a recovered amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- pursuant to FIR No. 39/2019 be released on superdari to the petitioner.

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner Shyam Sundar Singhania is the complainant and father of Anjani Kumar Singhania, who are the proprietor of SB Enterprises. Both of them were robbed at gun point by accused persons on 06.03.2019 at around 03:30 PM from their office situated at 2607, first floor, Naya Bazar, Delhi.

3. The accused persons beside the robbery also fired upon the elder son of the complainant Shri Anjani Kumar Singhania, who was injured.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.07.2022 11:39:24

4. This resulted in filing of the FIR No. 39/2019 at P.S. Lahori Gate u/s 394/397/307/411/34/120B IPC.

5. It is stated that the accused persons robbed an amount of Rs. 25,15,000/- which was kept in the almirah and the drawer in the office. The charge sheet has been filed in the FIR. An amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been recovered from the house of one of the accused, namely Prashant alias Jontu. It is the petitioner's submission that this amount was part of the total amount looted from the office of the complainant.

6. It is in this view of the matter that the petitioner filed an application dated 24.09.2019 before the Court of ASJ, Central for releasing the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- on superdari.

7. The mother of the accused Prashant alias Jontu, namely Kanta, who is also accused No. 4 objected to the release of the amount in favour of the petitioner.

8. The learned ASJ rejected the application and released a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which was recovered from co-accused Deepak to the petitioner.

9. On 07.04.02022, I had directed the respondent to verify the vouchers, statement of account/ledger to find out if the petitioner would have had a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- with him on the date of the incident.

10. Ms. Rao, learned ASC appearing for the State submits that this fact has been verified and the petitioner was having Rs. 25,00,000/- with him on the date of the incident.

11. The status report has verified the said factum.

12. She further states that the objector, namely accused No. 4. i.e. Ms. Kanta is a proclaimed offender and is not appearing in any Court.

13. For the above said reasons, I am of the view that there is sufficient Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.07.2022 11:39:24 material to identify the Rs. 8,00,000/- and I am of the view that the amount needs to be released to the petitioner.

14. In this view of the matter, the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- lying in malkhana in FIR No. 39/2019 be released to the petitioner on superdari on the following conditions:

(i) The SHO concerned shall prepare a detailed panchnama of the currency notes with their numbers/denomination;

(ii) SHO concerned shall take photographs of such currency notes amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/-;

(iii) SHO concerned shall take a security bond from the applicant;

(iv) SHO shall keep on record photographs of such currency notes which be attested/counter-signed by the complainant/applicant and accused Deepak @ Gadad;

(v) Memo of proceedings be prepared which must be signed by the parties and two witnesses.

15. It is also directed that the petitioner shall furnish a security to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the satisfaction of ASJ, Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

16. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 15, 2022/dm Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.07.2022 11:39:24

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders