TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These bail applications under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.369/2022 registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Sriganganagar are being heard and decided by a common order.

(2.) As per the F.I.R. No.369/2022 lodged by complainant-Ravinder Singh at P.S. Kotwali, District Sriganganagar; the complainant along with 140 persons was duped of hard-earned money to the tune of Rs.32.00 lakhs on the false pretext of employment made by the petitioners. The complainant was informed by his known, Narendra Singh in the month of September-October, 2022 that Office of District Literacy and Continuous Education, Sriganganagar through District Literacy Authority Committee, Sriganganagar has started one programme, under which 987 volunteer teachers would be appointed for monthly remuneration of Rs.9,300..00 Narendra Singh further stated that he has also enrolled (admitted) two of his daughters in the aforesaid programme by making payment of Rs.20,000.00 each. The complainant was then introduced to Tarsem Singh, who presented himself as a Zila Samanvayak, earning Rs.29,500.00 from the Government against his working in the said programme. Thereafter, the complainant was introduced to Devraj, working on the post of Senior Assistant in the Office of District Literacy and Continuous Education, Sriganganagar who demanded Rs.20,000.00 in lieu of appointment as volunteer teacher under the aforesaid programme.

(3.) In furtherance of this, complainant along with 140 others paid the amount, as demanded by the petitioners which came to be deposited by various relatives of the complainant. The training commenced from 30/10/2021 in Ambedkar Bhawan, Kesarsinghpur which was later deferred by the petitioners stating unavoidable reasons. The petitioners on enquires being made regarding the deferment of training, stated that Devraj was demanding more money for resuming the training. The complainant created pressure upon the petitioners, whereupon, the resumes of the complainant and others were taken; appointment letters and ID cards were issued; further demand of Rs.2,00,000.00 was raised and for the transfer of said amount, bank account details were furnished. After inquiring with the concerned department, the complainant got to know that there was no such programme being run by the department. Pursuant thereto, the complainant demanded his money back and the request was turned down by the petitioners.