JUDGMENT : N.K. SUDHINDRARAO, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present would submit that the matters which are interconnected apart from Crl. P. No. 8412/2017 and Crl. P. No. 7894/2017, is Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 and may be due to error, it is taken as Crl. P. No. 7398/2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 8412/2017 is absent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 is present. 4. The 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 and Crl. P. No. 8412/2017, but may be due to an error, the matter is listed as Crl. P. No. 7398/2017 instead of 7938/2017. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that all the three petitions including Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 are connected, insofar as Crl. P. No.7398/2017 is to be deleted and accordingly, it is delinked. 5. In all the three matters it was submitted that application for grant of interim bail also filed. However, in Crl. P. No.7894/2017 and Crl. P. No.7938/2017, the relief is granted and in Crl. P. No. 8412/2017, it is pending. 6. For the reasons morefully observed above that the complaint against all the petitioners are common and there is no bifurcation insofar as non- listing of Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 is concerned, as stated above the petition ought to have come on record but due to error by the office, Crl. P. No. 7398/2017 is crept in. However, the said error is purely a curable one and moreover, an error cannot be right to dominate the substance. It cannot be taken that non-listing of Crl. P. No. 7938/2017 is taken by surprise. Moreover as the facts are available before the Court the matters are disposed of through a common order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 prays time. 8. After hearing on clarification and ascertaining facts regarding the listing of case, prayer for adjournment is rejected. 9. The learned HCGP would submit that the investigation has come to grinding halt because of abscondance of the petitioners. The complaint is not by a single person, but by many as reflected in it. The organization of the petitioners is said to be a Joint Stock Company. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention the following: 10. 9. The learned HCGP would submit that the investigation has come to grinding halt because of abscondance of the petitioners. The complaint is not by a single person, but by many as reflected in it. The organization of the petitioners is said to be a Joint Stock Company. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention the following: 10. After the contents of the complaint are submitted by learned HCGP, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 sought time. Considering the judicial time consumed by the matter and matters which are common too being listed and the third one left out because of an error before the vacation Bench, the prayer is rejected. Moreover, there are no overlapping incidents requiring detailed and lengthy hearing. It is necessary to mention that the complaint is by set of persons who are aspired for job and the allegation is, each aspirant was made to pay Rs. 37.00 Lakhs for procuring job in the Airlines and ultimately, petitioners lured and collected the money promising jobs to the complainants in airlines, but it was a false promise. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 went on making submissions and also seeking time and was keen on extension of interim order which consume same amount of time of the main application when the entire facts are brought to the notice of the Court. However, in the context of the circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioners of arrest are not well founded and there are no grounds to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to them in Crime No. 198/2017. 12. Meanwhile learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. 7938/2017 appears. He submits that he has no instructions and seeks time, and the same is rejected. 13. These are the three criminal petitions arising out of Crime No. 198/2017 registered against seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 14. 12. Meanwhile learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. 7938/2017 appears. He submits that he has no instructions and seeks time, and the same is rejected. 13. These are the three criminal petitions arising out of Crime No. 198/2017 registered against seven accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 14. The substance of the complaint is that Prashant Dhingra, Achal MS, Saahil More, Chetan Chinmay Joshi, Aabhas Dave, Gurucharan Prabhakar, Anshum Aditya Ghai, Akshay Gupta, Narender Kaushik, Vinay Somshekar, Mohammed Abraar Hussain, Omair Kadir, Sahibjit Bhullara, Chinmay, lodged a report on 14.09.2017 at 7.35 p.m. to the effect that from 03.12.2014 FLYEASY (ABC Aviation and Training Services Private Limited) 1ST Floor, Airline building Alpha 3 Bangalore International Airport Devanahalli, Bangalore-30 being represented by Shika Developers, 1/18, 1st Floor, Presidency Building, St. Marks Road, Bengaluru-1, the Director Sanaulla Zulfiqur 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 to procure job in airlines and to start from Typewriting programme. By so, petitioners collected Rs. 37.00 Lakhs from each of the complainants and cheated them without providing employment. The accused persons are benefited through their cheating of an amount exceeding Rs. 4.00 Crores. In this background, case came to be registered as mentioned above. 15. These three petitions are from Crime No. 198/2017 on same set of facts, wherein the ranking of the petitioners with reference to the concerned criminal petition is as under:- S. No. Crl. Petition Accused 1 7894/2017 A-1 (S. Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan) 2 8412/2017 A-2 (Rajesh Ebrahim Kutty) 3 7938/2017 A-3 & 4 (Mohd. Azeem Ali Baig and Sundaram Subramanian) 16. The allegation against the petitioners in the respective cases are that they represented FLYEASY India and they lured the complaints of job and collected Rs. 37.00 lakhs from each of the complainants. In this connection, the total amount collected by the petitioners from the complainants and others exceeded Rs. 4.00 crores. But neither the job was secured nor the money was refunded. 17. In the circumstances, it is stated that the accused persons have floated the Company under which they cheated the complainants. Thus, in the context of the circumstances of the case, the substance has to be evaluated in the light of the substance rather than the error. 4.00 crores. But neither the job was secured nor the money was refunded. 17. In the circumstances, it is stated that the accused persons have floated the Company under which they cheated the complainants. Thus, in the context of the circumstances of the case, the substance has to be evaluated in the light of the substance rather than the error. It is a case wherein an amount of Rs. 37.00 lakhs is stated to have been extracted by the accused persons. Thereafter, they moved away from the site. It is stated that the petitioners are apprehending arrest and coercive action. 18. In the context of circumstances, rather than facts of the case, learned counsel appearing for respondent in Crl. P. Nos.7894/2017 and 7938/2017 insisted for adjourning the matters. Inspite of being instructed, learned counsel in Crl. P. No.7894/2017 is interfering and is warned by the Court. 19. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and their submissions often addressing in the middle to prevent the Court from going on with the case are not appreciated. There is no justification or necessity of granting relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 20. Petitioners in all the three petitions stand on same footing. Further, propriety does not support excluding a common matter from common disposal. 21. In the result, the petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are dismissed. 22. Applications for interim anticipatory bail in all the three matters stand disposed of. 23. On further submission, learned counsel Sri. Ismail Zabiulla S. for Sri. K.N. Subba Reddy for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 appears at the commencement of the second session and would submit that he could not be present in the first session when the matters are taken up for disposal and submits that he regrets for his absence and pray for an opportunity to submit. 24. Learned HCGP is present. Heard. 25. The dictation of the order of dismissing the criminal petitions are made in the first session. However, the matter is yet to be typed and thereafter to be signed. Learned counsel for petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 further submits that there are certain developments which he wants to bring it to the notice of the court and they go against the prosecution. 26. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he was kept in darkness by other two petitioners in Crl. Learned counsel for petitioner in Crl. P. No. 7894/2017 further submits that there are certain developments which he wants to bring it to the notice of the court and they go against the prosecution. 26. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he was kept in darkness by other two petitioners in Crl. P. Nos. 7938/2017 and 8412/2017. He would also submit that an amount of more than Rs. 2.00 Crores were refunded to the complainants. 27. As stated above, the very complaint is, the petitioners representing Flyeasy (ABC Aviation and Training Services Private Limited) have extracted Rs. 37.00 Lakhs from each of the job seekers that includes the complaints. The promise in consideration was securing jobs to those who paid money in Airlines, but at the end, payment was made, the complainants had to return empty handed and losing money. 28. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to make a mention that no authenticated documents regarding payment is mentioned. At the same time, morel importantly, when the petitioners could refund more than Rs. 2.00 crores as stated by the learned counsel. However, it was not explained as to why the amount was refunded, more particularly, the petitioners' Company is neither the Banking Institution or a Corporation established to collect deposits. Thus, I am of the sincere opinion that there are no circumstances or facts that would go in favour of the petitioners to change or modify the order. Thus, the order passed in the first session subsists and continues.