The Court was astonished on being told that the accused man’s actual wife pretended to be his sister-in-law during a visit to fix his ‘marriage’ with a woman who was then tricked into parting with 150 sovereigns of gold.
The Kerala High Court recently refused the grant of anticipatory bail to a married man who was accused of posing as a doctor on a matrimony site and tricking a woman into giving him 150 sovereigns of gold. [Nijesh Chandran & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr.]
The Court also denied the grant of pre-arrest bail to his wife and his 66-year-old mother who were also accused of participating in the crime.
Notably, Justice Gopinath P was also left astonished after he was told that the accused man’s wife pretended to be his sister-in-law during a visit to the complainant-woman’s house to fix their ‘marriage.’ The accused man’s mother also accompanied them on this visit, as per the complaint
“It is astonishing that the wife of the 1st petitioner (2nd petitioner)had accompanied the 1st petitioner and the 3rd petitioner to the house of the de-facto complainant as if the visit was to finalize the marriage between the 1 st petitioner and the de-facto complainant,” the order stated.
The Court opined that this indicated that all the three accused may be involved in the cheating case.
“These facts therefore indicate that the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant that the petitioners are all engaged in cheating the persons like the defacto complainant by putting up fake profiles on matrimonial websites cannot be ruled out at this stage,” the order said.
The judge proceeded to reject the bail pleas of all the three accused persons.
The three accused were booked after a woman claimed that the accused man had pretended to be unmarried and a doctor on a marriage website. As per the complainant-woman, the accused man also visited her home to fix their marriage along with his “sister-in-law” and his mother.
It was further alleged that the accused man then convinced the complainant to give him 150 sovereigns of gold, by falsely claiming that it was urgently needed for his father’s medical treatment.
Subsequently, he allegedly pledged the gold for loans and the loaned amount was deposited into his State Bank of India account.
The lawyer for the accused argued that the man and the complainant had been in business relationship. When the business failed, the complainant falsely claimed that he took 150 sovereigns of gold from her, the lawyer asserted.
He added that the accused man’s wife and mother were added as accused in the case only to put pressure on the first accused.
The Public Prosecutor and the complainant’s counsel strongly opposed the bail plea, asserting that it was a clear case of cheating.
Taking note of the allegations in the First Information Statement (FIS), the High Court said that it was not inclined to grant bail, including to the accused wife and the mother even if they were women. Accordingly, the Court rejected the bail plea.
