CRL.P/8412/2017 of SRI. RAJESH EBRAHIM KUTTY BEEVI Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 December 2017

ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner present wouldsubmit that the matters which are interconnected apartfromCrl.P.8412/2017andCrl.P.7894/2017, 1S|Crl.P.7938/2017 and may be due to error, it is taken asCrl.P.7398/2017.

2 |Learnedcounsel{Orthepetitioner1nCrl.P.8412/2017 is absent.

3. |Learnedcounselforthe|petitioner1nN

Crl.P.7894/2017 is present.

4The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7894/2017 would submit that there are other TWO|matters in.Crl.P.No.7938/2017—andCrl.P.No.8412/2017, but may be due to an error, thematter is listed as Crl.P.No.7398/2017 instead of7938/2017. In this connection, it is necessary tomentionthat|all.the.threepetitionsincludingCrl.P.No.7938/2017.alteconnected,insofaras|Crl.P.No.7398/2017 is to be deleted and accordingly, itis delinked. _

5In all the three matters it was submitted thatapplication for grant of interim bail also filed. However,in Crl.P.No.7894/2017 and Crl.P.No.7938/2017, therelief is granted and in Crl.P.No.8412/2017, it ispending. —

6. For the reasons morefully observed abovethat the complaint against all the petitioners areCcOMmmon and there is no bifurcation insofar as nolisting of Crl.P.7938/2017 is concerned, as stated above

the petition ought to have come on record but due toerror by the office, Crl.P.7398/2017 is crept in.However, the said error is purely a curable one andmoreover, an error cannot be right to dominate thesubstance. It cannot be taken that non-listing ofCrl.P.7938/2017 is taken by surprise. Moreover as thefacts are available before the Court the matters are'disposed of through a common order.

TS|Learnedcounselforthepetitioner1n Crl.P.7894/2017 prays time. —

8. |Afterhearing|OT]clarification andascertaining facts regarding the listing of case, prayerfor adjournment is rejected.

OQ The learned HCGP would submit that the!investigation has come to grinding halt because ofabscondance of the petitioners. The complaint is not bya single person, but by many as reflected in it. The organization of the petitioners is said to be a Joint StockCompany. Betore proceeding further, it is necessary tomention the following:

10. £=After the contents of the complaint aresubmitted by learned HCGP, the learned counsel forthe petitioner in Crl.P.No.7894/2017 sought time.—Considering the judicial time consumed by the matterand matters which are common too being listed andthe third one left out because of an error before the'vacation Bench, the prayer is rejected. Moreover, thereare no overlapping incidents requiring detailed andlengthy hearing. It is necessary to mention that thecomplaint is by set of persons who are aspired for joband the allegation is, each aspirant was made to payRs.37.00 Lakhs for procuring job in the Airlines andultimately, petitioners lured and collected the money promising jobs to the complainants in airlines, but itwas a false promise.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in|Crl.P.No.7894/2017 went on making submissions andalso seeking time and was Keen on extension of interimorder which consume same amount of time of the main|application when the entire facts are brought to thenotice of the Court. However, in the context of thecircumstances, the apprehension of the petitioners ofarrest are not well founded and there are no grounds toerant the relief of anticipatory bail to them in CrimeNo.198/2017.

12. Meanwhile learned counsel for the petitioner|

in Crl.P.7938/2017 appears. He submits that he hasno instructions and seeks time, and the same isrejected. |

13. )These are the three criminal petitions arisingout of Crime No.198/2017 registered against sevenaccused persons for the offence punishable underSection 420 ot Indian Penal Code.

14. |The substance of the complaint is thatPrashant Dhingra, Achal MS, Saahil More, ChetanChinmay Joshi, Aabhas Dave, Gurucharan Prabhakar,AnshumAditya|Ghai,AkshayGupta,NarenderKaushik,Vinay|somshekar,MohammedAbraarHussain, Omair Kadir, Sahibjit Bhullara, Chinmay,lodged a report on 14.09.2017 at 7.35p.m. to the effectthat from 03.12.2014 FLYEASY (ABC Aviation andTraining Services Private Limited) I[ST]Floor, Airlinebuilding Alpha 3 Bangalore International AirportDevanahalli, Bangalore-30 being represented by ShikaDevelopers, 1/18, l[69]Floor, Presidency Building,|st.Marks Road, Bengaluru-1, the Director SanaullaZultiqur Ahmed Khan, Chairman M.D.Rajesh Ebrahim

Kutty and partners Mohd.Azeem Nabir Ali Baig,Sundaram Subramanian and R.Thomas joined together,promised the complainants that they are going toprocure job in airlines and to start from Typewritingprogramme. By so, petitioners collected Rs.3/7.00Lakhs from each of the complainants and cheated themwithout providing employment. The accused persons arebenefitedthroughtheir.cheatingoT|aynamountexceeding Rs.4.00 Crores. In this background, casecame to be registered as mentioned above. —

15. These three petitions are from Crime No.198/2017 on same set of facts, wherein the ranking ofthe petitioners with reference to the concerned criminalpetition is as under:

31938/2017A-3 & 4 (Mohd.Azeem Ali Baig &Su12arammSub0/?/1</1(

16. |The allegation against the petitioners in therespective cases are that they represented FLYEASY.India and they lured the complaints of job and collectedRs.37.00 lakhs from each of the complainants. In thisconnection, the total amount collected by the petitionersfrom the complainants and others exceeded Rs.4.00crores. But neither the job was secured nor the moneywas retunded.

17. In the circumstances, it is stated that theaccused persons have floated the Company underwhich they cheated the complainants. Thus, in thecontext of the circumstances of the case, the substancehas to be evaluated in the light of the substance ratherthan the error. It is a case wherein an amount ot!Rs.37.00 lakhs is stated to have been extracted by theaccused persons. Thereafter, they moved away trom the site. It 1s stated that the petitioners are apprehendingarrest and coercive action.

18. |In the context of circumstances, rather thanfacts of the case, learned counsel appearing forrespondent in Crl.P.Nos.7894/2017 and 7938/2017.insisted for adjourning the matters. Inspite of beinginstructed, learned counsel in Crl.P.No.7894/2017 isinterfering and is warned by the Court.

19. The petitioners have approached this Courtseeking anticipatory bail and their submissions oftenaddressing in the middle to prevent the Court fromgoing on with the case are not appreciated. There is nojustification or necessity of granting relief under Section438 of Cr.P.C.

20. Petitioners in all the three petitions stand on)same footing. Further, propriety does not supportexcluding a common matter from common disposal. |

21. In the result, the petitions filed under Section438 of Cr.P.C., aredismissed Applications for interim anticipatory bail in all thethree matters stand disposed olf.

Sd/-.

JUDGE

22. On further submission, learned counsel Sri.Ismail Zabiulla S. for Sri. K.N. Subba Reddy for thepetitioner1nNCrl.P.No.7894/2017APpPCalsaltthe.cOMmencement of the second session and would submitthat he could not be present in the first session whenthe matters are taken up for disposal and submits thathe regrets for his absence and pray for an opportunityto submit.

23. Learned HCGP is present. Heard.|

24. The dictation of the order of dismissing thecriminal petitions are made in the first session.However, the matter is yet to be typed and thereafter to besigned.Learnedcounselforpetitionerin.Crl.P.No.7894/2017 further submits that there arecertain developments which he wants to bring it to thenotice of the court and they go against the prosecution. |

25. The learned counsel for petitioner wouldsubmit that he was kept in darkness by other twopetitioners in Crl.P.Nos.7938/2017 and 8412/2017. Hewould also submit that an amount of more than Rs.2.00Crores were refunded to the complainants.

26. As stated above, the very complaint is, thepetitioners representing Flyeasy (ABC Aviation andTraining Services Private Limited) have extractedRs.37.00 Lakhs from each of the job seekers thatincludes the complaints. The promise in considerationwas securing jobs to those who paid money in Airlines,but at the end, payment was made, the complainantshad to return empty handed and losing money. |

2/7. Considering the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary tomake a mention that no authenticated documents|regarding payment is mentioned. At the same time,morel importantly, when the petitioners could refundmore than Rs.2.00 crores as stated by the learnedcounsel. However, it was not explained as to why theamountWaSrefunded,INOTEparticularly,the.petitioners’ Company is neither the Banking Institutionor a Corporation established to collect deposits. Thus, Iam of the _ sincere opinion that there are nocircumstances or facts that would go in favour of thepetitioners to change or modify the order. Thus, theorder passed in the first session subsists and continues.

BSR/RV/SNC/tsn

Sd/-.

JUDGE