AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2025 Sonali Ashok Ugale @ Sonali Digitally signed by Kalidas Chandane … Applicant ATUL ATUL GANESH G KU AN LK E A S R H NI K D U at L e K : ARNI V/s.

2025.08.08

11:45:23 +0530 The State of Maharashtra … Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.515 OF 2025 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2025 Vipul Nagindas Sanghavi … Applicant In the matter between Sonali Ashok Ugale @ Sonali Kalidas Chandane … Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan A. Alai, Mr. Varun Joshi & Ms. Rama Somani i/b Chetan A. Alai for the Applicant.

Mr. Sanjay V. Vishwakarma for Intervener/applicant in IA.

Mrs. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for the State –

respondent.

Mr. Sunil Sonawane, PSI, Charkop Police Station is present.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 8, 2025 P.C.:

1. The present application is filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for her release on regular bail in connection with Crime Register No.163 of 2017 registered at Charkop Police Station. The applicant is facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In addition, the investigating agency has also invoked the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "MOFA").

2. As per the prosecution case, the applicant and her husband, who is a co-accused, are both directors of M/s. Prisha Developers. It is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused made representations before the first informant and several other prospective purchasers, stating that they were developing a real estate project named "Prisha Heights" on lands bearing CTS Nos. 1393, 1396, and 1933-C, situated at Mouje Dahisar, Borivali, Mumbai. One Mihir Oza is stated to have acted as the marketing agent for the said project and informed the first informant in December 2013 that construction work would begin within two months.

3. On the basis of such assurances and representations, the first ₹

informant claims to have paid an amount of 33,99,825/- towards the booking of a flat and a parking space in the said project. However, despite the passage of considerable time, construction did not begin, and neither was the amount refunded. The informant alleges that the applicant and her husband continued to give false assurances from time to time and failed to return the money on various excuses. Eventually, the first informant lodged the present complaint, alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mundargi, appearing for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is a director of Prisha Developers Private Limited. He submitted that the developer company had executed a development agreement with the original owner of the land, Mr. V.K. Lal, who claims title on the basis of an auction sale. However, the final conveyance deed in favour of the said owner has not yet been executed. According to the learned senior counsel, the matter regarding execution of the conveyance deed is pending before this Court, and directions are likely to be issued shortly for the same.

5. It is further submitted that the ownership of the said land was also subject matter of litigation under Section 32-G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The said dispute has now been settled in favour of Mr. V.K. Lal by the judgment dated 5th February 2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5539 of 2018. Hence, it is contended that there was a bona fide and genuine dispute regarding the title of the property. The allotment letter issued to the purchasers had clearly made them aware of the pending title issues.

6. Mr. Mundargi submitted that the amount received by the developer company was not misa