This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case registered as Crime No.884 of 2017 of the Sreekrishnapuram Police Station under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case is as follows. The de facto complainant started a company in Oman by name 'Modern Globals'. The first petitioner had approached the de facto complainant and told him that he was an expert in the operations of passenger lift and vehicle lift and he was interested in starting a company in Oman for installation and maintenance of lifts. It was on the basis of this representation made by the first petitioner that the de facto complainant started the company. The first petitioner told the de facto complainant that to start the functioning of the company materials worth Rs.50,00,000/- would be required and he would return to India and the aforesaid materials would be sent from the company being conducted by him and the second petitioner at Palakkad. On the basis of this representation made by the first petitioner, the de facto complainant transferred a total amount of Rs.24,00,000/- to the bank account in the name of the company run by the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners did not send or supply the materials to the de facto complainant and thereby they cheated him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The case against the petitioners is registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad. Even as per the allegations in this complaint, the second petitioner, who is the second accused in the case, had not made any inducement to the de facto complainant to part with any money. There is no allegation that the second petitioner had made any false representation to the de facto complainant. In the absence of any such allegation, the fact that there are other cases registered against the second petitioner for similar offences, need not deter this court from granting the benefit of pre-arrest bail to him.

6. However, the case against the first petitioner, who is the first accused in the case, stands on a different footing. There is specific allegation against him that he had induced the de facto complainant to part with money on the promise that he would supply materials to the company started by the de facto complainant in Oman. It is alleged that the de facto complainant had transferred Rs.24,00,000/- to the bank account of the company run by the petitioners at Palakkad on the basis of such representation made by the first petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the first petitioner would be necessary to have an effective investigation of the case. The report of the investigating officer also shows that the first petitioner has got criminal antecedents. There are two other cases registered against the first petitioner under Section 420 I.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the entire transaction alleged by the de facto complainant had taken place in Oman and therefore, in view of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C., no enquiry relating to the offence can be conducted in India without the sanction of the Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws support for this proposition from the decision of this court in Sanoop v. State of Kerala and Another, 2018 (1) KLD 706. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. It is a settled legal position that previous sanction of the Central Government envisaged under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. need be obtained only before the commencement of the trial. In Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637, the Supreme Court has held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence. If need be it could be