Sipte Mohammad v. The Inspector Of Police

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

This petition is filed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest concerned in Crime No.27 of 2022 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police.

2.It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's name is not mentioned in the First Information Report. The respondent is trying to rope in petitioner as accused. Thus, apprehending arrest, petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that petitioner is from Odissa and he induced the defacto-complainant on the promise of employment in railway and made defacto-complainant to part with Rs.9,00,000/- and several other persons were also cheated by the accused in this case. The investigation conducted so far revealed that money had been transferred from the account of the second accused to the account of this petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail

to the petitioner.

4.Considered rival submissions and perused the records. 5.It is seen from the First Information Report allegations that defacto-complainant's friend Jino Christopher promised to arrange a job in the railway to the defacto-complainant. He introduced Prabin Sagayaraj, Renauld Chakey and Meganathan. They asked him to pay Rs.9,00,000/- for the railway job. Accordingly, defacto-complainant paid money to the accused on 08.01.2017. Vinu Christopher gave a Document No.GM(p) CPO/0413/E Coast Rly/Comforamation/Joining/2015/2016, wherein, defacto-complainant was asked to appear on 18.04.2017 for training and prior to that medical tests had been conducted at Buvaneshwar. He was taken to Buvaneshwar and medical test was conducted to him at railway station. However, he was not given any job in railway.

6.As per the submission of learned Government Advocate

(Criminal side), during the course of investigation, it was revealed that petitioner was also actively involved in this job racketing as an agent under A2 for cheating vulnerable and innocent job seekers. The investigation in this case is not completed. In the said circumstances, and also the fact that this is a case of job racketing, where petitioner was actively involved in the commission of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. 03.07.2023 ep

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

ep

03.07.2023