The court emphasized that bail may be denied if the accused poses a threat to witness safety and has a record of similar offenses.

ORDER

The bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .

2. The prosecution case is that, by promising a job as General Manager in Travancore Soils and Fibre Industries Co-operative Society, the 1^st accused lured the defacto complainant, her husband and another lady named Athira to part with an amount of Rs. 14,50,000/-. After collecting the amount accused neither provided the job nor returned the amount collected from them and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 406 and

420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the 1^st accused contended that, the petitioner/A1 is innocent; that he was falsely implicated; that A1 has not offered any job or collected any amount from the defacto complainant, her husband or from one Athira as alleged.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that, the 1^st accused collected an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and her husband and collected an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from Athira, by promising job in Travancore Soils and Fibre Industries Co-operative Society, making them believe that it is a Semi Government Institution. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that A1/petitioner is involved in another crime as Crime No. 555/2023 of Thrikkakara Police Station, wherein the allegation is that he collected an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- from another person by promising job.

5. Having heard both sides, this Court finds that, prima facie there are sufficient materials to connect the the petitioner/ A1 with the crime alleged. The records prima facie reveal that the A1 lured the defacto complainant and her husband to part with an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-, by promising a job. The records would also reveal that he lured one lady named Athira to part with Rs.2,50,000/-, by promising job.

6. Having regard to the nature and the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it is committed, I find merit in the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner/A1 is released on bail, there is every possibility of influencing and threatening the witnesses and thereby he may hamper the investigation.

Taking into account nature and gravity of the ofence and the fact that 1^st accused is involved in a similar offence of very same nature, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the 1^st accused at this stage.

Hence, the bail application is dismissed.