SUJU GOPINATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973

(2.) The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.2580 of 2017 of the Paravoor Police Station under Section 420 IPC.

(3.) The prosecution case, as revealed from the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant, is as follows: The wife of the de facto complainant died about three months before December, 2017. On 19.12.2017, the de facto complainant received a telephone call stating that it was from the ICICI Bank, Kottiyam and that he was required to close the gold loan and personal loan in the name of his wife in the bank. On 21.12.2017, the de facto complainant gave an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused to close the loan. When the de facto complainant asked the accused about the receipt for payment of the amount in the bank, the accused told him that no receipt was given from the bank. On 22.12.2017, the de facto complainant received telephone call stating that it was from Gokulam Chit Funds and he was required to close the loan account in the name of his wife by paying the amount in the Thiruvananthapuram branch. On 23.12.2017, the de facto complainant pledged the gold ornaments in his possession and obtained an amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- and went to the Thiruvananthapuram branch of the Gokulam Chit Funds along with the accused. It is alleged that the chitty company was on the fifth floor of the building and therefore, the de facto complainant stood below the building and the accused alone went up there. On 24.12.2017, the accused came to the house of the de facto complainant with a person by name Santhosh and stated that Santhosh required money. When the de faco complainant told them that he had no money with him, they told him that gold would be sufficient. Then, the de facto complainant gave a gold chain weighing 4.500 sovereigns to the accused and asked him to obtain the amount by pledging it. Again, the accused obtained an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as loan from the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that using the PIN number of the ATM card of the de facto complainant, the accused had drawn an amount of Rs. 9,000/- from his account. On 29.12.2017, the de facto complainant wanted the accused to repay the amount but he did not pay it. On suspicion, the de facto complainant enquired with the ICICI Bank and Gokulam Chit Funds regarding the loan in the name of his wife and then he came to know that there was no such loan and that the accused had cheated him.