Mumbai: The sessions court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of BARC employee Subhashchand Katoch, 56, who is booked for cheating several unemployed persons to the tune of ₹64 lakh by offering them jobs with BARC or railways.
A complaint was made by one Raja Karale on July 2 this year with the Trombay police, who claimed that he and his relatives gave ₹64 lakh to Katoch for assured jobs. The police claimed that Katoch misused his post and gave false assurance to the victims. A list of persons from whom Katoch received money has also been submitted.
Bail applicant pleads his 'innocence'
Katoch, on the other hand, has claimed innocence. There is no iota of evidence to show that he committed the alleged offence and no prima facie case against him, he has stated while refuting the allegations. He added he is ready to cooperate with the investigation.
The court after hearing the allegedly affected persons observed, “The alleged offence is very serious and grave in nature. A huge amount is involved in the said crime. In my view, for recovering the amount, custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is necessary. The investigating officer would not be able to recover the amount unless and until custodial interrogation is granted to the accused.”
Court observations
The court further said, “It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Usually, socio-economic offence has deep rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fibre of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously. The accused belongs to the class of economic offenders and siphoned the amount of the complainant and witnesses.”
The court noted that the police had not yet registered a case but on the receipt of the complaint had just called the accused to join the investigation. “In my view, since crime is not registered against the accused, there is no apprehension of the arrest of the applicant. Therefore, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail. In addition to that, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary,” the court added.
