SUNITHA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sunitha Kumari, who is working as Civil Police officer in Thrissur Vanitha Police Station is the applicant in these two bail applications. Two crimes have been registered against her. Crime No.751/2020 was registered at the Thrissur West Police Station, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of the IPC along with one Arun as the 1st accused. In connection with that crime, the applicant has filed BA No.2929/2020. The said crime was registered on 05.05.2020. Subsequently, yet another crime was registered against the applicant as Crime No.493/2020 of Mannuthy Police Station, on 08.05.2020, in which she is the sole accused. There also the same offences are alleged. A lady named Salini is the de facto complainant in both these cases.

(2.) The facts can be summarized as thus; The de facto complainant was acquainted with the applicant. The applicant states that the de facto complainant was working as a maid in her house, whereas the de facto complainant denies that. It is stated that as early as in November 2018, the applicant offered the de facto complainant, a job as Traffic Warden in Thrissur Traffic Police Station, and obtained a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from her. The transaction took place at the rented house of the de facto complainant at Kozhukkully. The job was never arranged. Subsequently, during February 2020, the applicant again offered the de facto complainant yet another job at the Guruvayur Devaswom, and obtained from her, a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The said transaction took place at the beauty parlor conducted by the de facto complainant at Cheroor. The job at Guruvayur Devaswom also did not materialize. The de facto complainant never lost faith in the applicant, and the applicant once again offered her a very good job in the Indian Railway Kitchen. On 24.03.2020, as per directions of the applicant, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was allegedly paid by the de facto complainant to one Arun, the first accused in Crime No.751/2020 of Thrissur West Police Station. The railway job offer was not only to the de facto complainant, but also to her son and her relative. The de facto complainant also allegedly received an appointment order, regarding her appointment in the Railway kitchen service. Which, later on, was found to be a fraudulent document. Thus, the applicant cheated the de facto complainant continuously for a period of over two years and more.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.