THOMAS JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are applications for regular bail. The petitioner (common in both these cases) is the accused in Crime Nos.161 of 2025 and 168 of 2025 of Ramamangalam police station, Ernakulam District. Crime No.161/2025 has been registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sec. 318(4) read with Sec. 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while Crime No.168/2025 has been registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) In Crime No.161/2025, the allegation is that the petitioner along with the other accused had received from the de facto complainant a total sum of Rs.6,50,000.00, promising to arrange a job for the wife of the de facto complainant in Australia. The allegation in Crime No.168/2025 is that, the petitioner along with the other accused had received a sum of Rs.11,50,000.00 from the de facto complainant to arrange job for the wife of the de facto complainant in the United Kingdom. In both the cases it is alleged that, after receiving the amounts, the petitioner failed to arrange for job visa and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a total of 18 cases have been registered against the petitioner containing similar allegations. It is submitted that in all cases except the two cases, which are subject matter of this order, the petitioner has been granted bail. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 3/2/2025 in connection with Crime No.897/2024 of Anchal Police Station and the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.161/2025 was recorded on 7/3/2025, while the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.168/2025 was recorded on 7/4/2025. It is submitted that the petitioner has thus been in custody from 3/2/2025. It is submitted that in connection with Crime No.424/2024 of Mundakayam Police Station, this Court has granted bail to the petitioner through order dtd. 11/4/2025 in B.A. No.5225/2025. It is submitted that the allegations in that case are also identical and, therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail subject to the same conditions.