Anbu v. The Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.05.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c) r/w Sec. 420 of I.P.C. in Crime No.11 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that this is a case of job racketing. The petitioner, who is working as a Inspector of Police in Central Bureau of Investigation had introduced the defacto complainant to A1 and informed that he would arrange employment in C.B.I. for many persons. Believing his words, many persons have paid money through bank account and google pay and the defacto complainant said to have paid a sum of Rs.9,95,000/-. In fact, only two vacancies for the post of S.I. is pending and a sum of Rs.16 lakhs was fixed as expenditure for the said post. But, he neither gave appointment letter nor returned the amount paid by him. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ranked as A2 and he is only working as a Cook in C.I.S.F. and he only introduced some of persons to A1 and not received any amount under the guise of jot racketing. He would submit that he has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and he is no way connected with the offence. He would further submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 46 days from 17.05.2024. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that based on a false promise to obtain a job in C.B.I. as if the petitioner was working in C.B.I., and through this petitioner the defacto complainant only arranged persons and based on that, A1 received more than a sum of Rs.1 crore. The role of this petitioner is that he only informed that he would get appointment in C.B.I., for which he is giving training at Delhi. On believing the same, all were cheated. But, so far, he has neither gave appointment letter nor returned his amount. He would submit that if he is released on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and

hamper the investigation and the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and considering the fact that detailed investigation is to be conducted in the case of job racketing and many persons gave money to the petitioner and also considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and also considering the fact that there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

03.07.2024 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp Crl.O.P.No. 155589 of 2024 03.07.2024