Kerala High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Family Accused Of Cheating Woman Through Fake Matrimonial Profile

The Kerala High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to three persons who had allegedly cheated a woman by putting up a fake profile on a matrimonial website. 

The prosecution allegation was that the 1st petitioner who is a 38 year old man who is already married, had put up a matrimonial profile claiming himself to be a doctor, and had gone to the house of the de facto complainant with his wife and mother (2nd and 3rd petitioners herein), under the pretext of fixing marriage with the de facto complainant.

It is alleged that the 1st petitioner had thereafter obtained 150 sovereigns of gold from the de facto complainant, by convincing the latter that he required money urgently for the medical treatment of his father, whereafter he pledged the same, and obtained loan. 

Justice Gopinath P. was of the considered view that the plea for anticipatory bail could not be granted in light of the clear allegations against the respondents. 

The counsel for the petitioners had argued that the 1st petitioner and de facto complainant were involved in some business relations, in the sense that the latter was engaged in money lending business, while the former worked as a collection agent. It was submitted that the present false allegations were levelled against the 1st petitioner by the de facto complainant as a result of a fallout between the parties. It was added that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners were also added as parties in this case only to put pressure on the 1st petitioner to settle other disputes with the de-facto complainant.

The counsel also pressed for the grant of bail to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners who were women, and pleaded that the 3rd petitioner was 66 years old. 

The counsel for the respondents however argued that the present case was a clear instance of cheating, and that the preliminary enquiry had also revealed that the allegations against the petitioners were true. 

The Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to any of the petitioners in view of the allegations raised. 

"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 1st 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 defacto complainant by putting up fake profiles on matrimonial websites cannot be ruled out at this stage," it observed. 

The plea was thus dismissed. 

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates S. Shanavas Khan, S. Indu, and Kala G. Nambiar

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor G. Sudheer, and Advocate Suman Chakravarthy

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 616

Case Title: Nijesh Chandran & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 2805 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Order