Full Judgment
(Prayer: CRL.P filed U/S.438 CR.P.C by the Advocate for the Petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petr. on Bail in the event of his arrest in CR.NO.RC 27(A)/2015 of CBI/ACB/BLR P.S., Bengaluru District for the offence P/U/S 120(B) R/W 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Sec.13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of P.C.ACT and Sec.66 of I.T. Act and etc.)
1. Petitioner in the main petition bearing Crl.P.1439/16 is the 4th accused and the petitioner in the connected petition, Crl.P.1629/16 is the 3rd accused respectively in RC.27(A)/2015, a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 66 of the Information and Technology Act. Both of them are apprehending arrest at the hands of respondent-CBI and hence separate anticipatory bail applications have been filed on their behalf.
2. The respondent has filed detailed objections opposing both the applications.
3. Heard Sri K.Shashikiran Shetty, learned senior counsel representing Hanumanthappa (petitioner in Crl.P.1439/16) and Sri B.M.Shyamprasad, learned senior advocate representing Pradeepkumar (petitioner in Crl.P.1629/16).
4. The case is registered against the petitioners on the basis of reliable source information received by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, to the effect that Srinath, Raghu, Pradeep working as TTE in Sleeper Depot, Mysuru Division of South Western Railway and Hanumaghatti working as TTE, Hubli Division, had conspired together with unknown other officials of South Western Railway and unknown others and in furtherance of their criminal object, they have created a false website in the name of Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai, and Indian Railways as ticket collectors. The source information further discloses that the accused had collected huge money from several gullible persons promising them jobs in the Railways.
5. Learned senior counsel, Mr.Shashikiran Shetty and Mr.Shyamprasad have submitted their argument contending inter alia, amongst others, that though the case is exclusively triable under the P.C.Act, the offences are neither punishable with death nor with imprisonment for life and that they have undertaken to obey any condition which may be imposed upon them. It is also submitted that the petitioners have co- operated with the IO when their houses were searched pursuant to the search warrants obtained from the jurisdictional court.
6. Sri Shyamprasad, learned senior counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH .v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ([2016] 1 SCC 152) to contend that the materials on record will have to be carefully and meticulously evaluated, that too, with precision. It is further held in the said decision that the discretion to grant bail must be exercised with the available materials on record and the facts of the case. Hence both the learned counsel have requested this court to allow the bail applications.
7. Heard learned senior counsel, Sri C.H.Jadhav representing CBI. He has argued that grave allegations have been made against these petitioners in creating a false website in the in the name of Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai, and they have induced several innocent persons to apply for the same and have collected huge money. It is also argued that even examinations have been conducted and some candidates have been subjected to medical examination as though they have been selected for the post. It is argued that these petitioners are absolutely required for custodial interrogation and that many vital information will have to be elicited from them.
8. After going through the records and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration of this court is:
Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. at this stage?
REASONS
9. Respondent-CBI police has registered a case on the basis of reliable source information received by them, indicating the role of four persons- Srinath, Raghu, Pradeep and Hanumagatti. The source information also discloses that a false website has been created in the name of Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai, promising employment in Indian Railways and have collected huge money from gullible candidates and have issued fabricated appointment letters in favour of several candidates.
10. The respondent-CBI has made available the case diary in order to enable the court to know the status. The modus operandi of the petitioners and the other accused involved in creation of a fake website cannot be considered as an insignificant allegation. Admittedly, the Railway Recruitment Board is the biggest recruiting authority in the Indian Railways It is alleged that a fake website of Railway Recruitment Board was created with its front office and the petitioners had promised several innocent people jobs in the Indian Railways. Several incriminating materials have also been seized from the residences of the petitioners and investigation is still in a nascent stage. The statements of persons who have been deceived are yet to be recorded and many victims will have to be traced.
11. Apart from this, the manner in which false website was created and computers used for the same and several call details will have to be collected. The case diary discloses that sufficient effort is being made in this direction. After perusing the case diary, it is noticed that the respondent-CBI has received useful information in regard to fake medical certificates obtained by these petitioners in respect of candidates, journey tickets of persons who were aspiring candidates, as also of persons who accompanied the candidates for bogus examinations in south India. Huge cash is received by these petitioners and the investments made by them in their names and in the name of their family members, is the further allegation. Many computers, laptops, hard disk and printers will have to be recovered. Apart from this, the material objects such as rubber stamps, mobiles, etc. used by the accused to communicate with aspiring candidates have to be recovered and call details are yet to be collected.
12. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offences alleged against these petitioners and the manner in which the racket was organized, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion vested in this court under Section 438, Cr.P.C.
13. It is true that the court will have to evaluate all the materials collected before arriving at a conclusion as to whether anticipatory bail is to be granted or not. A detailed analysis of the materials on record is not required at this stage since custodial interrogation of the accused alone will help in collecting useful information/materials. Just because the petitioners did not abscond from the jurisdiction of this court, it will not be sufficient.
14. Custodial interrogation is a part of investigation and it is an absolute necessity in a case of this magnitude. Though the arrest of these petitioners will lead to the possibility of them being suspended from their jobs, their arrest cannot be avoided. Therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion veted under Section 438, Cr.P.C. If the discretion is exercised at this stage, it will scuttle further investigation. Taking into consideration the magnitude of the case and the alleged modus operandi used in this case, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Accordingly, both the bail petitions are liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
Crl.P. Nos.1439/16 and 1629/16 filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. are dismissed.