The gravity of the offense, public interest, and the need for custodial investigation are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail petitions.

JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking directions to the Investigating Officer to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail in FIR No.22 dated 23.02.2021, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 506 IPC later on offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC added registered at Police Station Division No.6, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not involved in the present case and his name was not mentioned in the FIR but was nominated later on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused namely Vipan Kumar. He has submitted that one of the other co-accused namely Suraj Kumar whose name was also nominated has been granted interim bail by this Court vide Annexure P-2 and the petitioner is at parity with the aforesaid Suraj Kumar and, therefore, r4he may be considered for the grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 10.06.2021 on the basis of averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned State counsel has submitted today that on the aforementioned date the learned State counsel had stated that the petitioner had deliberately concealed material facts from this Court and while referring to para No.8 of the petition he had submitted that there were 7 other cases against the petitioner of like nature and the petitioner was the main kingpin of the entire fraud which was being played by him by promising jobs for money.

4. Thereafter, a reply has been filed by one Harinder Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sub-Division Model Town, Jalandhar on behalf of respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted the status of the other cases against the petitioner by way of email and the same is taken on record. He has submitted that out of these seven cases, in most of the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted and now only two cases are pending against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Randhir Thind, learned DAG, Punjab while referring to there affidavit filed by the State submitted that there were 4 complainants who moved their respective grievances on different dates to the higher police officials against the co-accused namely Vipan Kumar, Kamla Devi and Mohinder Pal regarding embezzlement of money on the pretext of getting permanent job in Indian Railways. A joint inquiry was conducted by Deputy Commissioner of Police (Investigation), Jalandhar and during the inquiry the complainants got recorded their statements that they will produce some documents relating to the Railways jobs. After the registration of the FIR the complainants of the FIR duly recorded their statements and produced forged and fabricated documents pertaining to Northern Railways including Identity Card, forged Training/joining letters issued by Northern Railways and forged pass issued by Central Railway and thereafter, Sections 465, 467, 468 IPC were added in the FIR. Though, the complaints were moved against the above three accused but the name of the petitioner as well as the other co-accused namely Suraj Kumar came into light on the arrest of the co-accused Vipan Kumar who got his confessional statement recorded that he was doing work of networking, where the petitioner and Suraj Kumar met him. The petitioner said to Vipan Kumar that he had linkage with BSF and Railway and had earlier also recruited many unemployed persons in the jobs. A total amount of Rs.28,50,000/- was taken from the complainants and after the bifurcation of the total amount, Rs.26,50,000/- was kept by the petitioner, Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- by Vipan Kumar and Suraj Kumar respectively. Learned State counsel by referring to the affidavit has submitted that so far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, he was the mastermind of the planning and he has kept Rs.26,50,000/- on the basis of aforesaid fraud being committed against