Kerala High Court denies relief to man accused of fleecing ₹3.8 lakh from woman on promise of Court Assistant job

The Kerala High Court on Thursday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of fleecing a woman of ₹3.8 lakh under the pretext of arranging a job as a High Court Assistant for her [TM Najeeb v. State of Kerala & Anr.].While passing the order declining anticipatory bail, Justice Sophy Thomas opined that custodial interrogation would be necessary in this case in order to get the details of the job scam."In order to get the exact details of the transaction between the petitioner and the husband of the de facto complainant and also to get the details of the job offered and its credentials to unfurl the conspiracy behind the job scam etc, detailed investigation is necessary for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary. So, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on pre-arrest bail," the Court said..The prosecution allegation in this case against the petitioner/accused was that he made a false promise of arranging a job at the Kerala High Court for the victim-woman and took ₹3.8 lakhs from the husband of the woman. However, he neither fulfilled the promise nor return the money. A first information report (FIR) was subsequently registered with the police alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 417 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 420 (cheating and dishonesty inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .The accused subsequently approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. He alleged that a cheque of ₹3.6 lakh that he had issued to the husband of the complainant-woman was dishonoured and that he had refused to hand over a fresh cheque because the husband had not sent him a notice for initiating proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. He also contended that he had filed a police complaint against the husband two months before the woman filed the present complaint against him. .The public prosecutor opposed the application of anticipatory bail and submitted that the monetary transactions as alleged by the petitioner were not true and that the available facts and materials suggested that the version of the complainant was true. The de-facto complainant told the Court that the petitioner had fleeced others as well using the same ruse. .The Court opined that it would not be proper to grant anticipatory bail in this case and directed the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer on or before March 7, and co-operate with the investigation."In the event of arrest, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate court on the date of arrest itself. If an application for regular bail is preferred by him with prior notice to the prosecution, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the learned Magistrate on the date of application itself, as far as possible", the Court said in its order..The petitioner was represented by advocates Rameez Nooh, Fathima K, Ronit Zachariah, Badir Sadique, and KN Muhammed Thanveer. The complainant-woman was represented by advocates Ajai John and VM Sajan. Senior Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayanan appeared for the State prosecution. .[Read Order]