901 aba 566-22 dt 26.4 22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 566 OF 2022

Ravindra Ratanlal Jain

..Applicant

v/s.

The State of Maharashtra .

..Respondents

WITH

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 567 OF 2022

Kiran Babulal Raval

..Applicant

v/s.

The State of Maharashtra .

..Respondents

Mr. Ashok Bhatia for the Applicant.

Mr. Ninad for the Intervenor

Mrs. A.A.Takalkar, APP for the State.

CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.

DATED : 26^th APRIL, 2022.

P.C.

1.

These applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are filed for pre-

arrest bail in C.R.No.116 of 2020 registered with MHB Colony Police

Station for offences under Section 420 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

Mr. Bhatia, learned Counsel for the Applicants, submits that the

Applicants are not involved in commission of the said crime. He

contends that the agreement was between the Complainant and the

erstwhile partners, and that the Applicants cannot be held vicariously

pps

1 of 9

901 aba 566-22 dt 26.4 22.doc

liable for any offence committed by the partnership firm or by the

erstwhile partners. Learned Counsel for the Applicants further states

that the construction could not be completed in view of the status quo

order passed by this Court in the year 2013. The first informant entered

into settlement with the co-accused Abhay Bhandari under letter of

settlement dated 8.2.2018, pursuant to which he has been allotted a flat

in V.M.Heights. Learned Counsel for the Applicants states that the case

does not justify custodial interrogation and hence the Applicants are

entitled for bail.

3.

Learned APP submits that the Applicants herein are the partners,

who had assured the first informant that the construction was in

progress. She has also stated that the Applicants had signed the MOU

dated 21.04.2015 wherein they had agreed to refund the amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- to the Complainant. She submits that no LOI was issued

in favour of the partnership firm and they had not obtained any

permission or license from the concerned authorities. It is further

submitted that the flat in respect of which the Agreement is executed, is

in possession of some other person and that the statement of Mhatre,

Builder/Developer of V.M.Heights reveals that said Abhay Bhandari has

not paid the consideration in respect of the said flat, which is allegedly

given to the Complainant in lieu of the money received by Madhav

Builders. She states that the Applicants and the other partners are

pps

2 of 9

901 aba 566-22 dt 26.4 22.doc

involved in similar crimes and that they have defrauded several

purchasers. She submits that considering the above facts and

circumstances, this is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

4.

I have perused the records and considered the submissions

advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

5.

The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the First

Information Report lodged by Amar Pande, who was the Managing

Director of MIDC and Adviser of Consumer Affairs, 601. He retired in

the year 2010. He decided to purchase a residential premises from his

retirement benefits. He was introduced to the co-accused Abhay

Bhandari, one of the partners of Madhav Builders. The co-accused called

him to his office and introduced him to the other partners including the

applicant herein. In a meeting with Abhay Bhandari and other partners,

they informed him that a Project Excellency Towers was under

construction at Kanehri, which was likely to be completed in two years.

He agreed to purchase flat on the 15^th floor of the building for

Rs.52,00,000/-. He transferred Rs.25,00,000/- in the account details of

which were provided by Abhay Bhandari.

6.

In the year 2012, when he visited the site he noticed that no

construction was being carried out. Abhay Bhandari avoi