SANJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above mentioned application for grant of bail. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant Sant Shri Krishna Swami, FIR No.340/2013 was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons under Sections 420/468/467/471/120-B/34 IPC. The relevant extract of the FIR reads as under:

(2.) The respondent has filed the status report in the matter. It is stated that on the basis of the complaint the FIR was registered and the investigation was conducted. So far, the petitioner introduced himself as the Junior Engineer in DDA. The possession letter was handed over to the complainant on 14th December, 2012. He visited the site at Pushpanjali Enclave for handing over the possession through vehicle which is owned by Nancy Sharma, daughter of the petitioner. During the investigation, he has admitted that a sum of Rs.30 to 35 lacs came to his share. He was present at the time of land deal as per the audio track of video coverage. When IO moved an application for polygraph test of the petitioner, he refused the same.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh.Mukesh, who is an eye-witness, wherein it is categorically stated that "For giving possession Sanjay Sharma and Sandeep Sharma were introduced as DDA officials. When Swami Ji came Sh.Bal Kishan Gupta was sitting in a car who is accompanied by one person who was introduced to me as the director of DDA who has to give the possession and Bal Kishan told Swami Ji that his work is complete. Please give the amount to Sir and on asking of Bal Kishan, Swami Ji gave Rs.50 lacs to the said Sandeep Sharma of DDA inside the car itself. In the afternoon the DDA officer gave the possession of the plot in Pushpanjali, Pitampura to Swami Ji and left the place. That the person who has come as a director of DDA has come in the car bearing No.DL-4CAP-4802 and Sanjay Sharma was also accompanied in the said car and went back in the same car." It is stated by the learned Senior counsel that in the photograph filed by the investigating officer in the charge sheet, there is a car bearing No. DL-4CAP-4802 and the said car has no linkage with the present petitioner and in view thereof and the material available, the I.O. got another supplementary statement recorded that number of the car is wrongly mentioned and confiscated the car bearing No.DL-5CE-1183 of petitioner only.