Judgment :- Since these two bail petitions are interconnected on facts and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These bail petitions are filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. In Crl.O.P.No.3941 of 2015 A-1/Subramani and in Crl.O.P.No.3890 of 2015 A-2/S.G.P.Raj @ Guruprasannaraj are seeking bail. 4. Offences alleged are under Sections 406 and 420 IPC registered by Central Crime Branch (CCB), Chennai in Crime No.247 of 2009. 5. Now petitioners are being prosecuted before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet in C.C.No.345 of 2012 . 6. According to Mr.K.Kannan, learned counsel for A-1, in pursuance of the NBW issued by the Trial Court, petitioner has been arrested and remanded on 28.10.2014. Since then he is in jail. He is in long incarceration. He has been implicated in a job racketing case. He may be given an opportunity to contest the case by remaining at large. 7. According to Mr.K.S.Kaviarasu, learned counsel for A-2, along with A-1, A-2 also has been implicated in this case. He is in jail since 22.7.2014. He is in long incarceration. Rs.1.50 lakhs also has been paid back. There is no previous cases as against A-2. He may be given an opportunity to contest the case by remaining at large. 8. Prosecution filed common counter in both the bail petitions. 9. Learned Government Advocate would submit that petitioners are involved in job racketing case. They have targeted unemployed educated youths, promised them jobs after giving them some training at Rs.45,000/- per head. There were lot of complaints as against the petitioners. They were arrested. Petitioners have not kept up their promise made to the Court. They have thwarted the Court process. They have the tendency to abscond. Their earlier bail orders were cancelled by the Court. Thereafter with great difficulty in pursuance of the NBWs, they were arrested. They are habitual offenders. Subsequently, also they have committed similar offences. If let on bail, it is very difficult to get them back again. Further, they will repeat commission of very same offences. 10. Prosecution is ready to produce the witnesses and get on with the trial. 11. Mr.D.Vijay Babu, learned counsel for the de facto complainant reiterated the submissions of the learned Government Advocate. He supplemented the same by submitting that the petitioners have spoiled the life of many educated jobless youths. There are 300 complaints as against them. 10. Prosecution is ready to produce the witnesses and get on with the trial. 11. Mr.D.Vijay Babu, learned counsel for the de facto complainant reiterated the submissions of the learned Government Advocate. He supplemented the same by submitting that the petitioners have spoiled the life of many educated jobless youths. There are 300 complaints as against them. They have cheated more than 1.5 crores of rupees. They have also cheated the Court. In the earlier bail order granted by this Court, the surety affidavit filed by one Chockalingam on the property document on behalf of A-1 was found to be bogus. A case also has been registered as against A-1 and the said Chockalingam in Crime No.500 of 2013. If let out on bail, petitioners will abscond. Offences alleged against them are serious in nature. They will also flee away from justice. 12. Learned counsel for the Intervenor also submitted that in the facts and circumstances, petitioners are not fit to be granted bail. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the Intervenor also cited Masroor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another { (2009) 14 SCC 286 }, Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Alias Pappu Yadav vs. CBI { (2007) 1 SCC 70 } and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another { (2010) 14 SCC 496 }. 13. Now the question is whether in the facts and circumstances petitioners are entitled to be granted bail ? 14. 'Jail' is opposite to 'bail'. Jail is antithesis of liberty. Thus it is liberty vs. jail/incarceration. Section 439 in Chapter XXXIII of the New Code of 1973 deals with concurrent power of the High Court and the Sessions Court to grant custody bail to persons involved in non-bailable offences. 15. In course of time, Courts have evolved various grounds to consider the bail plea of the accused persons. 16. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amarmani Tripathi { (2005) 8 SCC 21 }, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “18. 15. In course of time, Courts have evolved various grounds to consider the bail plea of the accused persons. 16. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amarmani Tripathi { (2005) 8 SCC 21 }, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail {see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi, 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179 }. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.” 17. The above view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs. CBI { (2007) 1 SCC 70 }. 18. In Masroor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another { (2009) 14 SCC 286 }, while considering the right of the accused as well as the interest of the society, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “15. There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the Courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is possible that in a given situation, the collective interest of the community may outweigh the right of personal liberty of the individual concerned. In this context, the following observations of this Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan { (1987) 2 SCC 684 } are quite apposite: (SCC p.691, para 6) “6. .... Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution.” 19. Subsequently in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another { (2010) 14 SCC 496 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court catalogued the grounds upon which bail plea may be considered as under:- “It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. (Also see: State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi { (2005) 8 SCC 21 } (SCC p.31, para 18); Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr. { (2001) 4 SCC 280 }; Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. { (2002) 3 SCC 598 }” 20. Now in bail matters, the current trend is in line with Masroor (supra). In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI { 2012 (1) SCC 40 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court advocated adopting of a balanced approach in bail matters by holding that the Court has to balance the individual's (accused) right and the interest of the society at large. 21. Now in bail matters, the current trend is in line with Masroor (supra). In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI { 2012 (1) SCC 40 }, the Hon'ble Supreme Court advocated adopting of a balanced approach in bail matters by holding that the Court has to balance the individual's (accused) right and the interest of the society at large. 21. A-1 is Director of M/s.Ripple Infolink Pvt. Ltd., at No.12/3, 15th Cross Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24. A-2 is his associate. The activities of the said Company created ripples among the educated jobless youths. 22. A-1 and A-2 were alleged to have advertised that they will train the educated jobless youths and put them in placements carrying huge salary and perks. Many thronged their Office. Each were charged Rs.45,000/-. It is alleged that the accused have not kept up their promise and they have cheated the job seekers and the prosecution alleges Rs.75 lakhs have been swindled. 23. While the Intervenor says that it is more than Rs.1 crore. In the circumstances, one of the cheated person viz., Naresh Kumar filed a complaint. Based upon which this case in Crime No.245 of 2009 has been registered by the Central Crime Branch Police. Complaints started pouring in. As per the prosecution version, it is 139 complaints. 24. Prosecution completed the investigation and filed the final report before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai who took cognizance thereon in C.C.No.345 of 2012. Subsequently based on the orders of this Court, further investigation was conducted. Supplemental Final Report is stated to have been filed. In the said calendar case, A-1 and A-2 are being prosecuted. 25. A-1 engaged in a legal battle. He relentlessly fought for the grant of anticipatory bail. Since he was so absconding, the Court imposed on him certain condition viz., to deposit certain sum of money. He did not deposit. He took time after time. Ultimately not kept up his promise. In the circumstances, based on the petition of a victim of this offence, the bail order was cancelled. 26. Subsequently, in order to satisfy the bail condition, on behalf of A-1, one Chockalingam had produced surety affidavit for Rs.50,000/-. On verification, it was found to be bogus. In this connection, a case in Crime No.500 of 2013 has been registered as against A-1 and the said Chockalingam. Thereafter, ultimately the bail order of A-1 has been cancelled. 26. Subsequently, in order to satisfy the bail condition, on behalf of A-1, one Chockalingam had produced surety affidavit for Rs.50,000/-. On verification, it was found to be bogus. In this connection, a case in Crime No.500 of 2013 has been registered as against A-1 and the said Chockalingam. Thereafter, ultimately the bail order of A-1 has been cancelled. He was directed to be re-arrested. In the circumstances, NBW was issued. Thus, he was arrested on 22.10.2014. 27. It is mentioned in the common counter of the prosecution that A-1 was already involved in 20 bank fraud cases. In his intervening petition, the de facto complainant had furnished details of 25 previous cases as against A-1. All are bank fraud cases involving several lakhs of rupees in each case. 28. A-2 is an associate of A-1 in running the alleged cheating Company viz., M/s.Ripples Infolink Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. As regards the factual matrix, A-2 is also like A-1. A-2's bail order was also cancelled. He also subsequently gone to jail in execution of NBW. In the intervening petition, it is mentioned that subsequently A-2 was involved in similar offence under the name 'cloud timeline' in Pondicherry. There are information that A-2 is also concerned in a Cyber crime in Bombay. 29. Now it is seen that the allegations as against the petitioners are grave in nature. They were alleged to have brainwashed the youths, relieved them of their money, cheated them and spoiled their future. They were stated to be habitual offenders of similar white collar offences. It is stated that they continue to cheat the puplic. They are having the tendency to abscond. If released on bail, there is every possibility of they fleeing away from justice and also indulging in committing similar offences. 30. Petitioners are in jail for a considerable period as remand prisoners. They are entitled to be told whether they are guilty or not guilty at an early date. Their right to speedy justice and speedy trial are now part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 31. In the circumstances and considering all the above aspects, I am not inclined to grant them bail. 32. They are entitled to be told whether they are guilty or not guilty at an early date. Their right to speedy justice and speedy trial are now part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 31. In the circumstances and considering all the above aspects, I am not inclined to grant them bail. 32. Ordered as under:- (i) Bail petitions are dismissed ; (ii) Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, is directed to dispose of the Calendar Case in C.C.No.345 of 2012 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) The learned prosecuting counsel and the learned defence counsel will give their unstinted co-operation to the Trial Court to complete the trial within the prescribed time. 33. With the above observations, the bail petitions are disposed of.