JUDGMENT 1. - This case is a fine example of how Government money is not utilised for the purposes of it was allotted and is eaten up by hungry vultures who are ready to pounce upon whatever they can lay their hands on. 2. Over a crore of rupees meant for different schemes of training to be given to students has gone into the pockets of clever and scheming persons with the connivance of the officers in-charge. 3. The matter is still under investigation and the manner in which the Government money has been obtained and the actual recipients have been deprived can be given briefly. 4. District Rural Development Authority (DRDA) is a big institution having a whole establishment for purposes of dealing with the funds allotted to them for purposes giving scholarships to eligible persons. An I.A.S. officer, Shri B.K. Meena was the Project Director, Shri Anil Kumar Gupta was the Project Manager of the Project known as SCYTE. There was another scheme 'TRYSUM' in which he was a 'Subject Matter Specialist'. Veer Bahadur Singh and Ram Kumar Swami were Junior Accountants in the 'DRDA'. 5. The petitioner Kanta Prasad is said to be a friend and confidant of B.K. Meena. It is said that Kanta Prasad and Ram Pal Swami formed several fake institutions with their relatives as Presidents, treasurers etc. and in some of them they were also office bearers. Huge amounts were sanctioned in favour of these societies for purposes of distribution as per the scheme of the `DRDA' and this amount, instead of going to the candidates found its way to the bank accounts of these persons. The inspection reports of these institutions was prepared by Anil Kumar Gupta and the order of actual payment was passed by B.K. Meena, Project Director. 6. When the investigation started after registration of the case, assets worth Rs. 1,71,000/- were recovered from the petitioner Anil Kumar Gupta, this included Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs. 60,000/-. Between petitioner Kailash Chandra Swami and co-accused Jhabar Mal Rs. 17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen lacs) were distributed in the shape of grants to society of which they were Secretaries etc. This Jhabar Mal was released on bail by the trial Court under section 167 (2) Cr. PC. 7. Ram Kumar Swami and Kanta Prasad can be said to be the ring leaders in the whole conspiracy. 17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen lacs) were distributed in the shape of grants to society of which they were Secretaries etc. This Jhabar Mal was released on bail by the trial Court under section 167 (2) Cr. PC. 7. Ram Kumar Swami and Kanta Prasad can be said to be the ring leaders in the whole conspiracy. Both of them prepared the papers of the several fake societies in different names. These societies were not imparting any vocational training. In fact they were extinct societies whose papers were obtained from earlier official bearers. The accused persons purchased or some how obtained the registration and the bye-laws of these societies and thereafter, they changed the names of office bearers and manipulated the payments in the names of these societies. Referring to recoveries, Rs. 40,000/- were found in the bank account of Veer Bahadur Singh, Rs. 23 lacs in- cash were recovered from Ram Kumar Swami. This Ram Kumar Swami being a Junior Accountant in the DRDA' was receiving the drafts and cheques and was issuing the same to the bogus societies through his brother Jhabarmal, who had obtained Rs. 40,00000/-. The main person who could be said to have changed his life style after obtaining all the money can be said to be Kanta Prasad, who is a third grade teacher in a Government School. His two sons were office bearers of some societies and they were also accused, out of whom one is absconding There is recovery of a fixed deposit of Rs. 60,000/- in the name of Deepali daughter of Kanta Prasad from his second wife or mistress. Then Manju Lata Shaima came in his life. It is alleged that this Manju Lata Sharma became his mistress and she with Kanta Prasad formed eight societies She with draw Rs 12 lacs from the 'DRDA' as incharge of schools. These institutions are up to 5th class only and the question of providing vocational' training in these institutions does not arises. One house was purchased at Ahmadabad in the name of Manju Lata Sharma by a registered sale deed Besides this, a Video Parlour and a beauty parlour and several fixed deposits in different amounts were obtained in several banks in Gujarat in names similar to Kanta Prasad and Manju Lata Sharma and some other relatives A sum of Rs. One house was purchased at Ahmadabad in the name of Manju Lata Sharma by a registered sale deed Besides this, a Video Parlour and a beauty parlour and several fixed deposits in different amounts were obtained in several banks in Gujarat in names similar to Kanta Prasad and Manju Lata Sharma and some other relatives A sum of Rs. 12,000/- was recovered from the person of Kanta Prasad at the time of his arrest. It is said that he had two Ambassador cars one in the name of Manjulata Sharma. Over Rs. 4 lacs were recovered at his information. Some members of the Swami family are said to be still absconding. 8. The accused petitioners are represented by different counsel and practically all of them have contended that the real culprit is some other accused while the petitioner has been falsely booked in the case as accused In fact, Ram Kumar Swami and Kanta Prasad are said to be main persons who received the cheques in the name of their relatives and they are the persons who have faked various educational societies. For petitioner B.K. Meena, it is said that he was given Rs. 16 lacs but it is argued that so far there is no witness for this and no recovery was made from him for it is said that he sanctioned the payments in the regular course and did not make any manipulations. He had acted upon the reports of his sub ordinates and he cannot be said to be guilty of an offence merely because there has been a breach of rules for which there is no dishonest intention on his part. It is also stated that he is a person suffering from heart disease and his mother is also suffering from cancer and the instigation and" obtaining of sanction for prosecuting him will take time, hence he should be released on bail. 9. It is also stated that he is a person suffering from heart disease and his mother is also suffering from cancer and the instigation and" obtaining of sanction for prosecuting him will take time, hence he should be released on bail. 9. For petitioner Anil Kumar Gupta, it is said that in the year 1987 he received a certificate for good work and that from time to time, he inspected the societies and made complaints in writing and that he had refused to sign certain pay authorities and it was on his refusal that co-accused Devki Nandan, who had already retired, was called to sign these pay authorities.On this basis, it is contended that he could not be a member of the conspiracy as he had tried to keep himself away from misappropriation. For the amount recovered from him, it has been contended that no cash was recovered and that the Indira Vikas Patr as were disclosed in the Income Tax return and that he comes from a good family and could have accounts as were found in his name. 10. For petitioner Kailash Chandra Swami, it is stated that his society was paid over Rs. 5 lacs and another sum of Rs. 4 lacs was transferred to his account from some other institution but all this money was taken by Jhabar Mal has already been released on bail. On this basis it is prayed that the petitioner should also be given the same facility. The institution Smiriti Cheta Sansthan, which he is running was actually in existence though not for the purposes of imparting training for which the 'DRDA' was giving assistance but according to him, his institution was utilised by the conspirators. Nothing has been recovered from his house and for the recoveries from others it cannot be said that he is responsible. 11. Petitioner Veer Bahadur Singh was Junior Accountant in 'DRDA' and according to him his work was to prepare bills according to the orders and he was not involved in any manner. According to him he has been involved because in his house a society man was a tenant, who is involved in the whole racket. 12. 11. Petitioner Veer Bahadur Singh was Junior Accountant in 'DRDA' and according to him his work was to prepare bills according to the orders and he was not involved in any manner. According to him he has been involved because in his house a society man was a tenant, who is involved in the whole racket. 12. For petitioner Ram Kumar Swami, who was a Junior Accountant in the 'DRDA' it has contended that he is not a sanctioning authority and cannot sign any cheque and that he has acted according to the instructions of the others. It is also contended that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and the petitioners should be released on bail. There is no chance of tempering with the evidence and they should not be sentenced right now when the matter is under investigation. 13. The other argument is that he has completed 90 days in custody on 9th August, 1990 and as such, he cannot be detained in custody under any provision of law. 14. For Kanta Prasad it has been submitted that he is said to be a treasurer of these fake societies. His brother and others have been released on bail therefore, he should also be released on bail. It is also contended that he was taken in custody on 14th of June, 1990 but the arrest was shown on a later date. 15. What has been unearthed in investigation sofar has been narrated above while considering the case against the accused person. At this stage it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the accused persons and that whole case is false and fabricated. It may be mentioned that some played a major role and got away with the major share while others have played smaller role and therefore got smaller commission. The recovery of each amount in this is over Rs. 23 lacs and this cannot be said to be amount which could be planted for the purpose of making out a cause against the accused. What will ultimately be the result of the investigation and trial cannot be judged at this stage. However, this much is clear is that Ram Kumar Swami and Kanta Prasad are the persons who have acquired a major share in the whole deal and for this they have given appropriate shares to others. What will ultimately be the result of the investigation and trial cannot be judged at this stage. However, this much is clear is that Ram Kumar Swami and Kanta Prasad are the persons who have acquired a major share in the whole deal and for this they have given appropriate shares to others. They appear to be the main brain behind the whole scheme. The plats of the `DRDA' to give assistance to persons who are deserving, have bean converted into a scheme for the money themselves. 16. However, the question to be decided is whether these persons can be released on bail or not. Same of the main accused namely Jhabar Mal and 12 others have already been released on bail. Ram Kumar Swami, who is the main accused has to be released under section 167(2) Cr.PC as he has remained in custody for 90 days and the challan against him has not been filed. Considering the fact that the case is under investigation, which is likely to take time, it will not be appropriate to detain the accused persons merely in order to undergo sentence and it would not be appropriate to refuse bail to them. Any way the case of each accused has to be considered on its own merits and at present it can be said that two accused who do not deserve bail on account of their deeds are Kanta Prasad & Ram Kumar Swami. Out of these, Ram Kumar Swami is to be released under section 167(2) Cr.PC as the Court is without any power to remand him. Kanta Prasad, on the basis of the allegations against him does not deserve to be released on bail. 17. The learned Additional Advocate General has tried to convince this Court that the present case is one wherein responsible persons have misused their position and misappropriated huge amounts after forming fake societies and have deprived genuine persons from getting their dues and that this is a serious matter wherein bail should be refused. It may be said that if these contentions are taken seriously by the investigation then they would have avoided the situation wherein the accused persons would be released on bail under section 167(2) Cr PC. It may be said that if these contentions are taken seriously by the investigation then they would have avoided the situation wherein the accused persons would be released on bail under section 167(2) Cr PC. If the investigation can allow the benefit of bail to the accused for any reason whatever, then it is not fair to contend that the court should not release the accused on bail. 18. A number of ruling have been cited on behalf of the petitioners and the State but then it is not considered necessary to reproduce them as the grant or refusal of bail is to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. Grant of bail does not amount to saying that the accused is innocent and conversely the refusal does not mean that the accused is guilty. An accused cannot be refused bail in order to send him to a term of imprisonment even before he is found guilty. In the present case, the alleged offences are not punishable with imprisonment of life or death. They involve money matters which is a matter of record. The accused are not likely to abscond and one falls in this category it could be Kanta Prasad who has already slainted his activities in Ahmadabad. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances and the role attributed to each accused, it can be sold that Kanta Prasad is not entitled to bail. Ram Kumar Swami does not deserve to be released on bail on merits but he has to be released under section 167(2) Cr.PC. The other accused Kailash Chandra Swami, Bal Kishan Meena, Veer Bahadur Singh and Anil Kumar Gupta can be released on bail. 20. For the reasons stated above, the bail application except that of Kanta Prasad, are accepted and it is ordered that the accused petitioner Kailash Chandra Swami. Bal Kishan Meena, Veer Bahadur Singh, Anil Kumar Gupta and Ram Kumar Swami be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs 10 000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. Bal Kishan Meena, Veer Bahadur Singh, Anil Kumar Gupta and Ram Kumar Swami be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs 10 000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before that court on all dates of hearing during the pendency of trial against them and as called upon to do so with the condition : "That the petitioners shall not go out of Jaipur without obtaining permission of the concerned court." Bail Granted. *******