JUDGMENT 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 October, 1987 was released in December, 1988 and the Tehsildar took a sum over Rs. 34000/- for disbursement to the labour. The first information report in the case was lodged by the Tehsildar on 2nd January, 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 December, 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/- 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. 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. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that only the two petitioners have been made accused on political considerations and instead of finding out the truth, the investigation wants to pin the guilt on the petitioners. They have appeared for interrogation as per the directions of this Court on one occasion. 5. The question to be decided is whether, the petitioners should be released on anticipatory bail. It may be stated here that the grant of anticipatory bail does amount to forming a view that the petitioners have not committed any offence for not which the investigation is pending. At present it can be said that there are a number of suspicious circumstances, not only against the accused but against others also and unless the prosecution tries to find out the answer to them, it will be difficult to say whether the same offence has been committed by the petitioners alone or by some more persons with or without their assistance. It has expected that some material evidence would be collected by the prosecution during the last six months for which these bail applications have remained pending but so far, such steps have not been taken. When instead of making investigating officer wants to do it by a short cut method, then it can be said that the petitioners can be released on anticipatory bail on appropriate conditions. 6. When instead of making investigating officer wants to do it by a short cut method, then it can be said that the petitioners can be released on anticipatory bail on appropriate conditions. 6. I would like to observe again that for finding out the truth, it is necessary to examine the case from all angles. Whether pointing to the guilt of the petitioners or otherwise or pointing towards other persons, who can be said to be involved in the case, and unless this method is adopted, the investigation can lead now here. 7. It may be mentioned here, that the case of Sanwar Mal and Satyendra Singh petitioners is not exactly similar as Satyendra Singh came in the picture only after election of June 88 and his involvement is only in the incident dated 12th Dec., 1988, for which a report was made by the Tehsildar only on 2nd Jan. 1989. 8. In view of the above observations, the SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigation Officer, Police Station Gudha Gaudji, District Jhunjhunu in FIR 1/89 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest petitioners Satyander Singh and Sanwar Mal they be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (a) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat of promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuades him from disclosing such facts to the court, or any police officer; and (c) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Bail granted. *******