Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Family Accused Of Fraudulent Matrimonial Profile Scam
The Kerala High Court denied the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners accused of offenses under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations revolved around the 1st petitioner falsely posing as a Medical Doctor on a matrimonial site, engaging in a relationship with the de-facto complainant, and fraudulently obtaining money and gold. The 2nd petitioner was alleged to be the wife of the 1st petitioner, and the 3rd petitioner was the mother of the 1st petitioner. The Court deemed the allegations serious emphasizing the possibility of fraudulent activities.
A Bench of Justice Gopinath P. found, “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. 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 de-facto complainant by putting up fake profiles on matrimonial websites cannot be ruled out at this stage.”
Advocate S. Shanavas Khan appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Suman Chakravarthy appeared for the Respondents.
The petitioners' defense argued that they were innocent, suggesting that the case is a result of a business relationship gone sour between the 1st petitioner and the de-facto complainant. The defense claimed that the allegations were false and that the complaint was filed years after the alleged incident took place.
The prosecution contended that the 1st petitioner engaged in fraudulent activities by creating a fake profile on a matrimonial website, leading to cheating and financial exploitation. The prosecution also argued that the involvement of the 2nd petitioner (the wife) in the deceitful visit to the de-facto complainant's house indicated a clear intention to commit fraud.
The Court denied the anticipatory bail application. The Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, ruled that the allegations against the petitioners were serious and that the possibility of them engaging in fraudulent activities cannot be dismissed. The Court also highlighted the involvement of the 2nd petitioner and the 3rd petitioner in the deceitful visit, indicating a potential conspiracy.
Consequently, the Court decided not to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, and the bail application was dismissed.
Cause Title: Nijesh Chandran & Ors. v. State Of Kerala & Anr., [2023:KER:65772]
Click here to read/download Order
