JUDGMENT 1. The applicant, namely, Dr. Zakir Hussain has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail in connection with CID P.S. Case No.14/2019, under Sections 120(B)/420/406/468/471 IPC. 2. The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conferencing in view of the present scenario so as to maintain social distancing. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has not appeared. Neither the counsel has appeared through Video Conferencing in the Court complex, nor has request been received for joining the proceeding via internet. 4. Learned counsel for the prosecution has pointed out that facts need not be taken into account in so much as the applicant has filed this second application for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., just after less than two months of the earlier rejection. 5. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. 6. On perusal of Annexure-6, it becomes evident that the applicant earlier filed AB Case No.4581/2019 which was rejected vide order dated 07.02.2020 in the following terms: "Heard the learned counsel, Mr. I. H. Barbhuiya, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. K .Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. By this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner, namely, Zakir Hussain, has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in connection with C.I.D. P.S. Case No. 14/2019, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/406/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. Here in this case, the informant had paid an amount of Rs. 21 Lakhs to the petitioner being the Director of a Commercial Institution which gives tuition classes to young students. Smt. Swapna Deka is the CMD of the said organization. The informant paid the aforesaid amount to secure civil jobs in the Army Camp for his 2 (two) sons, but, later on the sons of the petitioner did not get any job as promised. The informant wanted the petitioner to return the money, whereas, he did not return the said money and so the F.I.R. has been lodged. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the instant case, there is a lot for a police investigation because these persons had been running a racket and thereby cheating the people. I have considered the matter in its entirety. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the instant case, there is a lot for a police investigation because these persons had been running a racket and thereby cheating the people. I have considered the matter in its entirety. I agree that in the instant case, a thorough police investigation is necessary and therefore, I do not find it a fit case for granting privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, namely, Zakir Hussain, is rejected at this stage. The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, disposed of." 7. The application under consideration was filed on 22.03.2020. 8. It is evident that on rejection of the earlier application for anticipatory bail, the applicant was required to join the investigation. The same having not been done, the proceedings have been delayed. 9. I have also taken into account the serious nature of accusation. Allegedly money was taken from the victims on the premise that civil jobs in Army Camp would be secured. Neither the jobs were secured nor was the money (Rs.21 lakh) returned. 10. Considering the fact that the earlier application for bail was rejected vide order dated 07.02.2020 (supra), this application is also dismissed. 11. Let a copy of the order be provided under the signatures of the Court Master.