IMPORTANT POINT
The severity of the offense, the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, and the likelihood of the accused absconding are key considerations in determining bail applications.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J.

1. The present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 119/2021, under Sections 406/409/420/120B of the IPC, registered at P.S. Barakhamba Road.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Mr. Anil Kumar Sood (hereinafter referred to as `complainant'). The complaint was filed against four accused persons, namely, Haqmuddin, Islamuddin, Taiyyab Hussain and Manoj Patel (the present applicant). In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant who is a retired person, suffering from cancer, was induced by co-accused Haqmuddin, who was a colleague of his daughter's immediate neighbor. It is alleged that the said accused person induced him by representing himself to be member of one of the teams at a company namely, `BTC ADS PRO', which was trading in bitcoin. It was further represented that the said group has their own mining, shopping malls and was shortly coming with its own trading exchange like BLOCKCHAIN. It was stated that the said group had a sound business model, through which they were giving daily returns to the investors on their investments at such a rate that each investor could normally get close to double their investment in 250 days. It is stated that offer of the said company was supported by a booklet having registration details and showing their registered office as `Coddan Cpm, 3rd Floor 120 Baker Street, London, England, W1U6TU-UK' and a website in the name of www.btcads.pro and having the email-id: support@btcads.pro. Details including photographs of persons associated with it and persons who have earned through the company were also given in the said booklet.

3. It is alleged that on being induced, the complainant gave 3 cheques of Rs. 80,800/- each to the aforesaid co-accused Haqmuddin. It is further alleged that thereafter, the other co-accused Islamuddin, on the basis of some investment prospect, took another sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash from the complainant. It is stated that initially, as promised, daily returns were visible on the website of the accused company on the IDs opened in the name of the complainant. Subsequently, it is alleged that the aforesaid Haqmuddin and Islamuddin introduced the complainant to co-accused Tayyaib Hussain, who further lured the complainant by saying that the investment was one lakh per cent safe and assured that his investment shall be returned in less than 3 months. It is alleged that on the basis of aforesaid inducement, the accused persons took a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs from the complainant over a period of one month. It is stated that 21 IDs were opened in the name of the complainant, his wife and his son. It is alleged that after 15.03.2018, the accused persons stopped sending details of investments on the website, closed the IDs as well as the website - www.btcads.pro. It is further alleged that the accused Haqmuddin and Islamuddin were reachable on their mobile phones but accused Tayyab Hussain was untraceable.

4. It is alleged that accused Islamuddin and Tayyab Hussain arranged for the complainant to meet the applicant at a hotel on 04.11.2019 where all the accused persons including the applicant assured him that they would return his entire investment on or before 13.12.2019. It was alleged to have been stated by them that the said payment would be partly made in cash and partly by way of IDs in their new company called IMAX Capital, whose WhatApp number was given by the applicant to the complainant. It is stated that the applicant was seeing his messages sent by the complainant seeking repayment on the said number till 08.11.2019 and thereafter, he blocked the complainant.

5. During the course of investigation, the applicant did not comply with the notice under Section 41A of the CrPC and was arrested. During further investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant was stated t