Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N.K. SUDHINDRARAO, J.
Rajesh Ebrahim Kutty Beevi – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka by Cubbonpark Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 8412, 7894, 7938 of 2017
Decided On : 28-12-2017
Criminal Petitions - Anticipatory Bail - Section 420 of Indian Penal Code - 438 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved three criminal petitions arising from a complaint against seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged that the accused persons lured job aspirants, collected Rs. 37.00 lakhs from each of them, and cheated them by promising jobs in airlines without providing employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no grounds to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crime No. 198/2017. The court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the applications for interim anticipatory bail in all the three matters.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of cheating and the complaint filed against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the substance of the complaint, the amount of money collected by the accused persons, and the lack of justification or necessity for granting relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The court also considered the absence of authenticated documents regarding payments and the lack of circumstances or facts in favor of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the applications for interim anticipatory bail in all the three matters.
N.K. SUDHINDRARAO, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present would submit that the matters which are interconnected apart from Crl. P. No. 8412/2017 and Crl. P. No. 7894/2017, is Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 and may be due to error, it is taken as Crl. P. No. 7398/2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 8412/2017 is absent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 is present.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 would submit that there are other two matters in Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 and Crl. P. No. 8412/2017, but may be due to an error, the matter is listed as Crl. P. No. 7398/2017 instead of 7938/2017. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that all the three petitions including Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 are connected, insofar as Crl. P. No.7398/2017 is to be deleted and accordingly, it is delinked.
5. In all the three matters it was submitted that application for grant of interim bail also filed. However, in Crl. P. No.7894/2017 and Crl. P. No.7938/2017, the relief is granted and in Crl. P. No. 8412/2017, it is pending.
6. For the reasons morefully observed above that the complaint against all the petitioners are common and there is no bifurcation insofar as non- listing of Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 is concerned, as stated above the petition ought to have come on record but due to error by the office, Crl. P. No. 7398/2017 is crept in. However, the said error is purely a curable one and moreover, an error cannot be right to dominate the substance. It cannot be taken that non-listing of Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 is taken by surprise. Moreover as the facts are available before the Court the matters are disposed of through a common order.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 prays time.
8. After hearing on clarification and ascertaining facts regarding the listing of case, prayer for adjournment is rejected.
9. The learned HCGP would submit that the investigation has come to grinding halt because of abscondance of the petitioners. The complaint is not by a single person, but by many as reflected in it. The organization of the petitioners is said to be a Joint Stock Company. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention the following:
10. After the contents of the complaint are submitted by learned HCGP, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 sought time. Considering the judicial time consumed by the matter and matters which are common too being listed and the third one left out because of an error before the vacation Bench, the prayer is rejected. Moreover, there are no overlapping incidents requiring detailed and lengthy hearing. It is necessary to mention that the complaint is by set of persons who are aspired for job and the allegation is, each aspirant was made to pay Rs. 37.00 Lakhs for procuring job in the Airlines and ultimately, petitioners lured and collected the money promising jobs to the complainants in airlines, but it was a false promise.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 went on making submissions and also seeking time and was keen on extension of interim order which consume same amount of time of the main application when the entire facts are brought to the notice of the Court. However, in the context of the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioners of arrest are not well founded and there are no grounds to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to them in Crime No. 198/2017.
12. Meanwhile learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. 7938/2017 appears. He submits that he has no instructions and seeks time, and the same is rejected.
13. These are the three criminal petitions arising out of Crime No. 198/2017 registered against seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
14. The substance of the complai
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
