The court affirms that anticipatory bail may not be granted where serious allegations threaten the integrity of a criminal investigation.

ORDER

This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.

2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1227 of 2022 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, alleging offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

3. According to the prosecution, accused had, after cheating the defacto complainant, obtained Rs.12,00,000/- offering to procure an employment for the son of the defacto complainant at Travancore Titanium Products Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram and collected his bio-data and thereafter conducted a fake interview and failed to provide employment or return the money and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and that incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly roped in as an accused, and that he is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed.

5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant on the other hand contended that the allegations are serious and the ‘job racket’ is still in existence, procuring large amounts of money from the gullible public offering to provide employment in the company and unless custodial interrogation is carried out, truth of the allegations will not be able to be unraveled.

6. Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious and that during the course of investigation conducted so far, various fake appointment letters have been recovered from the laptop of the 4th accused and that all of them are acting in connivance with each other and unless custodial interrogation of the petitioner is carried out the investigation will be prejudiced.

7. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the documents.

8. The crime of procuring a job on payment of money is a serious offence. Accused is alleged to have collected an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the petitioner, promising to procure employment for the defacto complainant’s son. Petitioner is alleged to have received Rs.4,00,000/- through his Bank account towards the said illegal act.

9. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner could be protected with an order of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, I dismiss this application.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM

19/1/2023