Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA, 1944 Crime No.1227 of 2022 of Poojappura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: SHAMNAD AGED 36 YEARS S/O. M. ABDUL SALAM, SHAMNAD NIVAS, KONNIYOOR, PUNALAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695575 K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.1227/2022 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 3 SHEEBA SHERIN. M.S. W/O. PREMA RAJ, M.S. BHAVAN, NEELIYAMVILA, AYIRA P.O., KARODU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 13/01/2023 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R.GOPAN
OTHER PRESENT: PP -SMT.M.K PUSHPALATHA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------- B.A.NO. 10441 of 2022 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2023
ORDER
This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioner is the 1 st 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