Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 728 (RAJ)

Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-03

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-All the three petitioners seek anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 CrPC in FIR No. 53/99, Police Station, Raniwara, district Jalore, for the offences under Secs. 467,468,471 and 120-B, IPC. Since the above-mentioned three bail applications arise out of one and the same FIR, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Public Prosecutor for the State and the Counsel appearing for the complainant. Perused the orders impugned dated 212.2004 and 17.1.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore in Bail Applications No. 192/2004 and 3/2005 respectively. 3. The facts and circumstance giving rise to these anticipatory bail applications are that complaintant Gulab Chand filed a complaint against the petitioners stating therein that the complainant , his brothers Hukmi Chand and Mangal Chand jointly own and posses big Chak of Land. Petitioner Hukmi Chand, in conspiracy with petitioner Man Singh the Sarpanch of village Malwada and petitioner Tulsa Ram the Gram Sewak, for forging various documents and valuable securities, forged a Patta in respect of the land jointly owned and possessed by the complainant and his brothers in favour of petitioner Hukmi Chands wife Smt. Amba Devi. The forged Patta is dated 12.1998. The said Patta has been forged on the strength of the statement of one Shanti Lal, who alleged to have made a statement in File No. 73/98 on 7.3.1998. However, the Patta issued in favour of Smt. Amaba Devi W/o petitioner Hukmi Chand was dated 12.1998 on the basis of statement of Shanti Lal, who never made any such statement on or before 12.1998. On the complaint filed by the complainant, it was sent to the police for investigation under Sec. 156 (3) CrPC and the matter is at the investigation stage. 4. Earlier, in the case, the police made an attempt to file an incomplete final report merely on the ground that the matter is of civil nature. However, the police subsequently undertook the investigation in the light of the statement of various witnesses and the allegation made by the complainant. There are number of affidavits of various persons, who are said to be the Ward Members of village Malwara, that the site was never inspected before issuing the Patta in favour of Smt. Amba Devi. However, the police subsequently undertook the investigation in the light of the statement of various witnesses and the allegation made by the complainant. There are number of affidavits of various persons, who are said to be the Ward Members of village Malwara, that the site was never inspected before issuing the Patta in favour of Smt. Amba Devi. Even some of the Ward Members were not residing on the relevant date in village Malwara. There are statements and affidavits of the persons, viz. Shanti Lal, Mafat Lal, Arvind Kumar, Pratap Singh etc. on record stating therein that they have not participated in the Panchayat meetings. Some of the Ward Members, on the relevant date, were in Mumbai and not present in the village. Shanti Lal categorically stated in his statement and in the affidavit that he made only one statement on 7.3.1998 in File No. 73/98 and no statement was made by him either on 12.1998 or prior to this date in respect of the file, in which a forged Patta has been issued in favour of Smt. Amba Devi W/o petitioner Hukmi Chand. 5. Smt. Amba Devi W/o petitioner Hukmi Chand as well as petitioner Hukmi Chand earlier filed writ petitions before this Court, bearing SBCWP Nos. 376/2000 and 380/2000 regarding the plot in question, for which the alleged Patta has been granted. Those writ petitions came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.2003. Petitioner Tulsa Ram filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 567/2004 under Sec. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR in question and further investigation thereunder, which came to be dismissed on 8.2004. Earlier to this, petitioners Tulsa Ram, Man Singh and one Tara Chand filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR in question and the said petition also came to be dismissed on 6.4.2004. 6. It appears that Smt. Amba Devi W/o petitioner Hukmi Chand also filed a civil suit for injunction and on the ground of filing the suit by her, the police earlier filed a negative final report, which was not accepted by the Judicial Magistrate and on further inquiry, the police came to the conclusion that the offences noticed-above are prima facie made out against the petitioners. 7. The state Government accorded sanction under Sec. 197 CrPC to prosecute petitioners Man Singh and Tulsa Ram being the public servant. 7. The state Government accorded sanction under Sec. 197 CrPC to prosecute petitioners Man Singh and Tulsa Ram being the public servant. Merely because the matter involved civil consequences also, it can be no ground to grant a pre-arrest bail. On careful perusal of the police investigation diary, the statement of various witnesses as also the affidavits filed by them before the investigating officer, I am of the view that petitioner Man Singh Sarpanch and petitioner Tulsa Ram Gram Sewak, in conspiracy with petitioner Hukmi Chand, in order to grab the valuable land, forged the record of the Panchayat, the statement of Shanti Lal and issued the alleged forged Patta in favour of Smt. Amba Devi W/o petitioner Hukmi Chand. The matter could not proceed even at the investigation stage for one reason or another including the writ petitions and criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by some of the petitioners before this Court, but the same cannot be a ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in the mater where prima facie there appears to be involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the crime noticed above. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not consider it a fit case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. In a matter of forging a valuable security, custodial interrogation of the petitioners would help the investigating agency to come to a right conclusion and file the investigation report. 8. Consequently, the bail applications filed by the petitioners under Sec. 438 CrPC lack merit and are dismissed accordingly.