The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 50 of 2018 of Thrithala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and his wife while working in Dubai made the de facto complainant to believe that if he invest money in his business of supplying building material and petroleum products, he would be provided profit for such investment and accordingly they invested Rs.2,18,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner has not returned the money as assured and thereby he has committed the aforesaid offence.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as an employee of the company owned by the de facto complainant. The said company was engaged in the supply of building materials. The de facto complainant has canvassed many NRIs in Dubai for investing in his business venture. Some of the NRIs, who had acquaintance with the petitioner, also invested money in his business concern. The de facto complainant had provided profit to the investors as offered during the initial stages. Later, when the investors were not provided with profit, they started creating problems and the petitioner was compelled to hand over his cheques and other valuable documents as security. In fact, the entire transaction has taken place in Dubai and no part of the transaction has taken place in India. The creditors preferred complaints to the police resulting in the registration of Crime Nos. 401, 402, 403, 365, 409, 422, 428, 429, 431 of 2017 by the Thrithala Police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The de facto complainant is also an accused in the aforesaid cases. The de facto complainant had committed theft of valuable documents, car and other personal belongings of the petitioner from his apartment, for which crime was registered by the police against the de facto complainant. Apprehending arrest and detention, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

5. According to the petitioner's counsel, in order to have financial transaction from Kerala, the de facto complainant maintained a client customer relationship with the Kotak-Mahindra, a private Banker. The de facto complainant, who had regular business with the Bank, got acquaintance with the petitioner, who was then working as a staff in that Bank. It is also submitted that the petitioner was arrested and had undergone detention for 90 days. It is further contended that the offence has been committed outside India and therefore there is a bar under Section 188 Cr.P.C in conducting cases against him. Section 188 Cr.P.C deals with the offence committed outside India. It is profitable to extract Section 188 Cr.P.C, which reads thus:

S.188. When an offence is committed outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

From the above, it is clear that an inquiry and trial is permissible only with the sanction of the Central Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohamed Rafi v. State of Kerala, 2009 (1) KLJ 745 wherein it is held that the investigation into an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed outside India by an Indian citizen does not require the sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of Cr.P.C. In Mohamed Rafii, a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Mohamed v. State of Kerala, 1994(1) KLT 464 ha