Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 27: Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected the pre-arrest bail of Mamta Devi who duped people on the name of Govt job.
a complaint on behalf of Sikander Hayat S/o Mohd. Yousaf, Sikander Hussain S/o Abdul Ghani, Mushtaq Hussain S/o Mohd. Younis, Mohd. Aksar S/o Mohd. Talib, residents of Kakora Tehsil and District Rajouri, Mohd. Azam S/o Mohd. Rafiq R/o Mohra Karal Tehsil Kotranka District Rajouri and Mohd. Alyas S/o Mohd. Yousaf R/o Jaglanoo, Tehsil Kotranka District Rajouri duly endorsed by Special Municipal Mobile, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was received in Crime Branch, Jammu wherein the complainants had alleged that on 19.05.2010 they came to Jammu and from some independent source, came to know about the religious activities of one Mohd. Ashraf Peer who was residing in the house of Mamta Devi alias Chanchlo Devi W/o Jasbir Singh at Akalpur near Vishwa Bharti School, Akalpur Muthi, Domana, Jammu.
The complainants met with the said Peer and narrated their miseries to him on which they were told by the said Peer that the woman Mamta Devi, her husband Jasbir Singh, daughter Sonia and Neelam Devi W/o Harnam Singh, having political links were in a position to manage Govt. jobs for the complainants. On this, the complainants met with the above named accused persons who assured that they would provide permanent jobs to the complainants in Social Forestry Department in lieu of Rs.3.00 lacs each for miscellaneous expenses. The day of payment was fixed and on that day the accused persons handed over the appointment orders to the complainants pertaining to Social Forestry Department as Plantation Watcher. The accused persons also got published the select list in the Morning Time Newspaper dated 13.12.2010. When the complainants approached the concerned department for joining, they came to know that the appointment orders were fake and forged etc; that on receipt of this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was initiated in Crime Branch, Jammu and during the course of enquiry, prima facie offences u/s 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B/RPC were made out against Mohd. Ashraf Hafiz S/o Mohd. Yousaf R/o Koteranka Raiouri, Mamta Devi w/o Jasbir Singh, Jasbir Singh H/o Mamta Devi, Sonia D/o Jasbir Singh,
Neelam Devi W/o Harnam Singh R/o near Vishwa Bharti School, Akalpur, Muthi Domana, Jammu, Mohd Yousuf Wani and Abdul Qayoom R/o Srinagar. FIR was accordingly registered and during the course of investigation, it has been found that one Mohd. Ashraf (Hafiz) S/o Mohd. Yousaf R/o Kotranka who is a known 'Peer' had come across with one Mst. Mamta Devi alias Chanchlo Devi w/o Jasbir Singh R/o Akalpur, Muthi, who assured him that she had some political clout and that she could manage appointments in Forest Department. The said Mohd Ashraf went to his home and informed his close relatives (complainants) about all this. The complainants came to the house of the Mst. Mamta Devi at Akalpur Muthi, Jammu and enquired from her about the employment prospects. Accused and her husband Jasbir Singh assured the complainants that they could manage their appointments in Social Forestry Department and demanded 2.50 lac rupees from each candidate. In the month of July 2010, each candidate had paid one lac rupees and qualification certificates to the accused Mamta Devi at her residence. After a few days, Mamta Devi took all the complainants to Srinagar and produced them in an office where they were asked to submit their joining reports. After submitting their joining reports, the remaining amount of Rs.1.5 lac on behalf of each candidate was also paid by the complainants to her. The complainants were told by two persons present in that office namely Mohd. Yousaf and Abdul Qayoom that their postings will be ordered soon in their own District and after waiting for one year when the complainants approached the higher authorities, they came to know that their appointment orders were fake.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta after hearing Adv Ajay Bakshi for the applicant whereas Adv Rajneesh Oswal for the Crime Branch observed that petitioner was involved in only one case, but in present case petitioner is habitual offender of like offences and dismissed the application. |
