### Employment Scams Involving Complicity of Officials Warrant Custodial Interrogation, Precluding Anticipatory Bail.

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 349/2021 regarding an alleged job racket where they collected approximately ₹12,00,000/- from victims under the pretext of securing employment in the Railway Department

The accused allegedly conducted mock medical exams at railway hospitals, organized "training sessions" for 150 people at railway facilities in West Bengal, and issued forged appointment letters

Upon discovery of the fraud, the accused issued cheques that subsequently bounced and allegedly threatened victims with false rape charges

While interim protection was granted previously by predecessor benches, the State opposed the bail on grounds of non-cooperation during investigation and the need for custodial interrogation to unearth a larger conspiracy involving railway officials

Whether the nature and gravity of the accusations, involving a complex recruitment fraud and forgery, warrant the grant of anticipatory bail

Whether custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate the suspected involvement of public officials and the broader network of the crime

The court applied the principles governing Section 438 of the CrPC (now corresponding to the relevant provision of the BNSS) concerning anticipatory bail.

It centered the rule on the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused during investigation, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to uncover a "vast network of fraud"

The court scrutinized the offense under Sections 420 (Cheating), 463/464/465 (Forgery), and 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating) of the IPC

The court rejected the petitioners' defense that they were victims or public-spirited whistleblowers, noting that documents purportedly showing communication with the Railways appeared "tailored subsequently" and lacked official receipts

The court emphasized that the accused issued cheques to victims which bounced, a fact inconsistent with the claim of being innocent bystanders

Significantly, the court observed that the fraud’s execution—including access to railway hospitals and training centers—could not have occurred without the "complicity of railway officials"

Given that the applicants provided evasive answers during investigation ("do not remember anything") and that other co-accused are absconding, the court determined that the IO’s requirement for custodial interrogation was justified to unearth the full scale of the conspiracy

The court dismissed both applications and directed the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer by 05:00 pm on the date of the judgment