Top
News Updates

Court Can’t Be Mute Spectator To Job Sharks, Says Bombay HC; Denies Anticipatory Bail Plea

Nitish Kashyap
22 Aug 2017 4:46 AM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

Taking a tough stance on ‘sharks’ who prey on helpless unemployed youth, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to one Ramesh Bapurao Rangari, who has been accused of defrauding a boy by taking money from him in promise of a job.

Justice VM Deshpande was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by Rangari.

Applicant’s lawyer AR Wagh submitted his client’s willingness to withdraw the application after the court did not seem to be inclined to allow the application. But the court refused and observed: “Normally, the court accepts such requests and grant permissions to withdraw the applications. However, in the present case, in view of the nature of the accusations made against the present applicant this court is of the view that such permission cannot be granted in favour of the applicant and his application has to be dismissed on merit.”

Case Background

Pravin Nikhade, who had only passed his Class-12 examination and was looking for a job, was approached by relative Praful Helwate.

Helwate lured Pravin by telling him that there was a vacancy for the post of clerk at a company called WCL.

Apart from this, Helwate told Pravin that one Shankar Gedam, and applicant Ramesh Rangari had contacts with top officials in the company and could get Pravin the job.

Thereafter, Gedam informed Pravin that Rs.14 lakh would be required in order to secure the job.

Pravin paid the amount in two installments after selling a plot of land.

He was told by the accused that he would receive his formal appointment letter via email. The same was sent to Pravin’s gmail account, however, it was a single page letter.

Thereafter, on July 17, 2016, a 9-page appointment letter confirming Pravin’s employment and asking him to join in Yavatmal district was received.

Accordingly, Pravin went to Yavatmal along with his father. This is where he was informed that no such letter had been issued by the company.

Final Order

Thus, warning against such ‘sharks’ in the society, the court dismissed the application and observed: “In our country, the persons like the present applicant who roams in the society like shark and they are always in search of prey like first informant who are helpless in view of the rising unemployment and are ready to shell out money for securing employment to their sons and daughters.”

The person like the present applicant are there to exploit the situation to such an extent that they exhort their victims to sell out their properties in order to give money to these persons and thereafter these persons disappear from the scene. In my view, the Court cannot be mute spectator to such situation. Unless, tough stand is taken against the activities of these types of sharks, they cannot be scale down.”

Next Story