LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-55

TARUN HARISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 08, 2009
TARUN HARISH SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Tarun Harish Sharma has moved this application for bail in the Case Crime No. 634 of 2008 under Sections 302, 307 and 120B, I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Hathras Gate, district Hathras.

(2.) HEARD Sri Satish Trivedi the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Anup Trivedi the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(3.) IT was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. If the injured witnesses Swetambar and Pitambar had come to know about the name and identity of the applicant, there was no reason for them to conceal this fact and not to disclose the same to the complainant before lodging of the F.I.R. The other two witnesses namely Mahesh Chandra and Pappu alias Parshottam Das are respectively residents of the district Etah and Bharatpur and as such they were not in a position to disclose the name and other identity of the appellant. The police has not held any test identification parade for identification of the appellant by these two witnesses. IT was further submitted that in the F.I.R. it has been alleged that the assailants fled away in an Indica Car. Now the story that has been set up is that the assailant fled away in the Santro Car U. P. 91H 8634 belonging to the applicant's father. IT was also submitted that the applicant being an advocate, was appearing in several cases against the police and has himself filed a criminal complaint against Ashtosh Tripathi, S. O. Mursan, Rakesh Sharma, Inspector, P. S. Kotwali, Hathras and 60-70 police personnel including Rameshwar Upadhyay, Block Pramukh, who happens to be the brother of Sri Ram Veer Upadhyay a Minister in the U. P. Cabinet. These three persons, in connivance with the complainant and his witnesses, got concocted the instant case against the applicant.