Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 578 (RAJ)

Tarsem Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-21

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT Kuldeep Mathur, J. - These bail applications under Section 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 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. 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 each. The complainant was then introduced to Tarsem Singh, who presented himself as a Zila Samanvayak, earning Rs.29,500 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 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 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. 4. By this modus operandi, the petitioners cheated unemployed youth by making false promise of providing employment to them. 5. 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. 4. By this modus operandi, the petitioners cheated unemployed youth by making false promise of providing employment to them. 5. As per the challan, Tarsem Singh (Crl.M. (Bail) Application No.14549/2022) used his personal laptop to create forged office order, appointment letters which were then signed by Sohan Lal (Crl.M. (Bail) Application No.13709/2022) presenting himself to be Secretary of the aforesaid programme. The appointment letters were given only after approval/agreement of Devraj (Crl.M. (Bail) Application No.11816/2022). In lieu of these forged/fake appointment letters, Tarsem Singh (Crl.M. (Bail) Application No.14549/2022) used to receive money in his personal and his son’s bank account. Further, money received in cash was given to Sohanlal (Crl.M. (Bail) Application No.13709/2022) and his clerks. 6. The investigation agency procured call details and CAF ID’s of the accused-petitioners, the details whereof were provided in the challan and a bare perusal of the same reveals that there are numerous calls between the accused-petitioners during the period of offence, fortifying the fact that there was prior meeting of minds between the accused-petitioners. 7. The investigation agency has also recovered the laptop used for creating forged documents at the instance of Tarsem Singh. Recovery of office order of Office of District Literacy and Continuous Education, Sriganganagar (length- 25 pages) has been made from Devraj. Further, recovery of 696 forged documents pertaining to acceptance of commencement of work has been made from Sohanlal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners; they did not create any false/fabricated document. It was further submitted that if they are released on bail, there is no apprehension of them tampering with the prosecution evidence. It was submitted that there is no independent or corroboratory evidence to connect the petitioners and also no incriminating material has been recovered from them. 9. It was jointly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that challan has been filed in the present case; no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars; trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time. 9. It was jointly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that challan has been filed in the present case; no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars; trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time. Learned counsel implored that indulgence may be granted by this Court and petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the applications for bail filed by the petitioners. It was submitted that in the present case, 140 unemployed youth and their parents have been cheated of their hard-earned money at the hands of the petitioners on the false pretext of providing employment. It was further submitted that the petitioners engaged in creating fake office order, ID’s, appointment letters and other documents. It was submitted that the call details between the accused-petitioners point towards a criminal conspiracy with an intention to cheat innocent unemployed youth. 11. It was thus urged that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioners who have played with the trust posed in them by unemployed victims, this Court may not grant indulgence in the applications for bail filed by them. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners so also learned Public Prosecutor and perused the F.I.R. and challan. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this court, the nature and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner are serious. 14. The FIR and investigation made in connection thereof clearly indicate that unemployed innocent youth was specifically targeted by the accused-petitioners by alluring them for jobs in relation to a government scheme which was non-existent. It is most unfortunate that one of the accused (Sohanlal) holding a Government post conspired with other accused persons and used his post to give a colour of genuineness to the forged programme. 15. The grant of regular bail in a case involving cheating and creation of false documents in order to cheat such a large of unemployed youth involving such a huge amount of money would not only be detrimental to the present case but also to the trust reposed by the public at large in the criminal justice system. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and looking to the seriousness of allegations against the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the applications for bail are dismissed. 17. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and looking to the seriousness of allegations against the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the applications for bail are dismissed. 17. The petitioners are however at liberty to file a fresh bail application after statement of Investigating Officer.