news details |
|
|
| CJM rejects bail of four in revenue raid case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 3: CJM Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh today rejected the bail plea of four persons including a retired Tehsildar in much publicized revenue raid case. The CJM Jammu rejected the bail applications of Sadeeq Poswal, a property dealer of Channi Himmat, Mohammad Bashir, retired Tehsildar R/o Janipura, Dharampal, retired Girdawar from Sarore and Ghulam Rasool, retired Girdawar hailing from Sunjwan.
The CJM Jammu while rejecting bail application observed that from investigation carried out up till now, it is crucial to piece together different facets gathered as evidence during investigation. It is also note worthy that core of premise that set forth investigation rested on the complaint by complainant regarding missing of revenue records of Sunjwan and Chowadi villages of Tehsil Bahu. After FIR in question was registered, raids at 21 places in Jammu district were allegedly conducted during which revenue records, original and in the shape of photocopies is stated to have been recovered from the residences of petitioners, the detail of which is given hereinabove. Allegations against petitioners therefore have to be viewed in this perspective and alignment of factum of alleged seizure of revenue record as aforementioned with allegations against petitioners has too to be understood in that background.
The CJM Jammu observed that seizure of revenue records comprising of different mutation paratsarkars, register of Jamabandhi, Aks of village Sunjwan, original record of rights of village in Bishnah, original register of Khasra Girdawari, original paratsarkar of different mutations of village Chowadi, photocopy of field book of village Chowadi, photocopy of Latha/Massavi, Aks Massavi of village Deeli and other revenue record the detail of which stands already given hereinabove-from private residences of petitioners only reveals the scale of gravity of allegations against them and web of complexity requiring disentangling during investigation.
The CJM Jammu observed that till date, Special Investigating Team has not been able to even identify the revenue officials to whom the missing record was entrusted and how part of same (record) landed so effortlessly in private custody of the petitioners. Photo copies of record allegedly recovered from the residences of petitioners is of no legal utility to prosecution. Furthermore, some of the revenue record pertaining to village Paloura and Janipur has also allegedly been seized during raids. This not only expands the remit of investigation but also necessitates deep dig into degree of retrenchment of seemingly an organized group of offenders in securing custody over revenue record of such vital significance and virtually running parallel set-up within state with impunity.
If SIT has not been able to identify, leave alone round up, the smaller un-scrupulous characters involved in the conspiracy of offences involved in the FIR in question, laying hands on bigger sharks then appears to be a distant possibility in this seemingly well-oiled nexus. Some of the record alleged to have been seized is said to be in dilapidated condition. Investigation indeed prima facie supports charge of offences under sections 380/477/120-B of IPC against petitioners. Merely because it is yet to be established as to whom the lost/missing revenue record was entrusted originally is yet to be established during investigation - would not ipso facto mean that said record has been misplaced without the involvement/connivance of concerned revenue officials.
Furthermore, SIT has not closed in on such revenue officials who at relevant time were in-charge of the record which is alleged to have been misplaced/destroyed. Seized revenue record needs to be read and understood. For all this, SIT not only needs to evolve a road map but also requires necessary logistics. All this eloquently demonstrates the necessity of prompt response by appropriate revenue authorities. Grant of bail to petitioners at this stage in the given facts and circumstances of the case would only send a very discouraging message to public at large as well. With these observations Court rejected the bail application. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
