AASHU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The matter is triable by magistrate. According to the prosecution story Rs. 2,50,000/- was given by the informant in cash to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the prosecution witness namely Charanjeet Singh depicts that Rs. 2,80,000/- was given to Ram Devi by Charanjeet Singh out of which Rs. 2,50,000/- was given to the present applicant in cash as Rama Devi mortgaged her agricultural land, whereas the other prosecution witness namely Santosh has submitted that the said money of Rs. 2,50,000/- was given to the applicant for getting the grand son of the informant released from jail. Thus, both the witnesses have narrated the different story altogether. It is further submitted that the investigating officer has not collected any evidence as to whether the said Charanjeet Singh withdrawn the amount from his bank or the source from where he has obtained that amount. It is further submitted that the allegations are false as there is no evidence against the present applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.01.2020 without having any previous criminal antecedents.