IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3060 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.260/09 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): 2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- SAKKEER HUSSAIN SHIHABUDDEEN, S/O. SHIHABUDDEEN MOHAMMED, HOUSE NO.8/371/A RANI MAHAL, VETTUVILAKOM, BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010, ALONG WITH BA NOS.3061 & 3066 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.3060, 3061 & 3066 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 ORDER These Bail applications are filed by the second accused in Crime Nos.260 of 2009, 258 of 2009 and 259 of 2009 of Parassala Police Station, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner made an advertisement in newspapers inviting applications from qualified candidates for being appointed as Software Engineers in Givion Softmake Technologies (P) Ltd., of which the petitioner was the Managing Director. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh each was collected from the candidates. They were never appointed. Instead, the business premises of the company was closed down and the petitioner left the place. It is alleged that the petitioner did not repay the amount to the candidates from whom money was collected. The prosecution case is that the petitioner has BA Nos.3060, 3061 & 3066/2009 2 amassed more than Rs.6 Crores by cheating the job seekers. 4. The petitioner was making himself scarce. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be extended in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations are grave in nature. It is alleged that several youngsters were cheated by the petitioner and thereby, he amassed wealth. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely essential in the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl