the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. In light of the above, the grant of bail to the above two accused persons - the driver of the vehicle and the helper, does not seem to be a good and sufficient reason for granting bail to the respondent-accused. The above two accused are not the main accused, but the vicarious agents of the respondent-accused, who is the main person in drug trafficking and was involved in the above illegal transactions. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in releasing him on bail in the. The role of the respondent-accused different from that of the driver and the helper, the co- accused. The co-accused his affidavit filed in support of his bail application before the High Court admitted the and his role as the mastermind of the illegal trade, as is evident from the order of his release on bail. It has been submitted that petitioners are giving threat to kill the complainant and their whole action since inception to last, is collusive as much as fraudulent. Arrears of revenue, upto the period of 19.12.2022, have been accumulated more than Rs.80 lakhs, which have not been paid, nor the possession of the disputed property has been handed over despite repeated requests, therefore, stern action be taken against the petitioners, who are cheaters and defaulters. Learned counsel for complainant has drawn attention of this Court, to one additional registered on 18.11.2022 at Police Station the management of one another located nearby, against persons presently holding the management and charge of Hotel, in order to show that as a matter of fact, petitioners have handed over the charge, management and possession of Hotel elements, who are used to taking the law in their own hands. Learned counsel contended that the accused petitioners, from the start had a fraudulent and dishonest intention to enter into agreements with complainant, so also induced the complainant deceitfully to hand over the possession of premises to them. offence of cheating and to misappropriate the property of complainant dishonestly, hence in totality of facts and circumstances, a clear case for commission of offences?