PANAJI
The trial court in Mapusa has refused anticipatory bail to a taxi operator accused of cheating a 63-year-old woman of gold ornaments and cash, observing that the allegations were grave and warranted a detailed police inquiry.
Additional Sessions Judge Apurva Nagvenkar, while rejecting the plea filed by Dilip Gaonkar, said the investigating team must be allowed to inquire into the matter since the missing 100 gms of gold and Rs 1 lakh cash were yet to be recovered.
The complaint, lodged at Mapusa Police Station, alleged that Gaonkar developed a relationship with the woman before allegedly fleeing with her jewellery and money. The court noted the prosecution’s submission that the accused had taken advantage of the complainant’s vulnerability as a senior citizen.
“The complainant had made serious allegations against the applicant of cheating her to part with the gold and cash by taking advantage of her vulnerability,” the court said.
Gaonkar, in his pre-arrest bail application, claimed he had worked as a ward boy at the District Hospital in Mapusa between 2006 and 2011, and met the complainant during her hospital visits. He stated that she had voluntarily offered him financial assistance, including four gold bangles, one gold chain and one lakh rupees, to help him repay debts.
He further alleged that the woman’s daughter assaulted her after discovering the transactions and later took her to the police station to file the complaint.
Maintaining that the relationship was ‘purely cordial,’ the applicant argued there was no force, coercion or deception at any point in time.
The investigating officer submitted that his custodial interrogation could become necessary to unearth the complete facts related to the incident. The State also argued that granting anticipatory bail at this preliminary stage, even before registration of an FIR, would hamper the inquiry.
“The complaint reveals that the applicant has cheated the complainant and has taken gold weighing around 100 gms and cash of Rs 1,00,000 from her and it is not yet found,” the court said, adding that the accused “cannot be protected by anticipatory bail.”
