ORDER : (GOPINATH P., J.) 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 Section 318 (4) read with Section 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , while Crime No.168/2025 has been registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 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/-, 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/- 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 03.02.2025 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 07.03.2025, while the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.168/2025 was recorded on 07.04.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner has thus been in custody from 03.02.2025. 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 dated 11.04.2025 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. 4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. 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. 4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having regard to the order dated 11.04.2025 in B.A. No.5225/2025, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to the same conditions. Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:- 1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing separate bonds for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 3. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also. 6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the de facto complainant are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if there is any violation of the above conditions.