SATYENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two bail applications arise out of the same matter. The petitioner Sanwar Mal was the Sarpanch of Gram panchayat Gudha up till June, 1988 and thereafter, the petitioner Satyendra Singh was the elected Sarpanch of this Gram panchayat. Certain famine works were executed within the jurisdiction of this Gram panchayat and the case of the prosecution is that the muster rolls issued to the Gram panchayat from Feb., 1988 to June, 1988 were entered by the concerned persons with fictitious names and then the work done by the labour was verified by a number of authorities including the Sarpanch, thereafter payment of these muster rolls and that of Oct., 1987 was released in Dec., 1988 and the Tehsildar took a sum over Rs. 34000.00 for disbursement to the labour. The first information report in the case was lodged by the Tehsildar on 2nd Jan., 1989. Besides, mentioning above facts it was reported that when the Tehsildar, accompanied by Murari Lal, Patwari and went to disburse the amount then they were taken by Satyendra Singh petitioner to the house of the petitioner Sanwar Mal and at that place both the petitioners said that the muster rolls were fake and no one would come to collect the payment and the money should be given to them and saying this, the accused-petitioner Satyendra Singh took away the money lying on the table and dis-appeared. This incident is said to be of 12th Dec., 1988. This matter was brought to the notice of the Collector but it is not clear that whether a written report was made or oral information was given and on his instructions, the Tehsildar deposited a sum of Rs. 34,319.00 in the office of the Collector.

(2.) The matter is being investigated by Shri Ramjilal Sharma, Dy. S.P. Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.

(3.) This matter has been heard by me on a number of dates and during this period it was ordered that the petitioners shall not be arrested but they shall appeal for interrogation before the investigating officer. On an early occasion, I had made an observation that the actual case is more than what it appears on the surface and it was necessary to go deep in the matter. However, in the investigation, so far statements of a few witnesses residents of the village have been recorded who have deposed that they did not work at the site for which the muster rolls were prepared and their names were (illegible) entered as the persons who worked there. I would not like to comment upon these statements or other evidence collected during the investigation, but I cannot help having a feeling that the matter is not being investigated thoroughly. It is not for me to give guidelines for the investigation but one thing is certain, which is that the truth is not being unearthed in this case. For this, the learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the investigation is being hampered because, the petitioners have been granted interim bail.