: 1 :

02-aba-975-20.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 975 OF 2020

1. Pankaj Jivraj Khajanchi

2. Nadim Tamboli

3. Manish Joshi

4. Balkrishna Devare

.... Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.... Respondent

______

Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w. Aniesh Jadhav for Applicants.

Smt. Veera Shinde, APP for State/Respondent.

Mr. Pratik B. Rahade, for Intervenor.

______

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE

: 21^st SEPTEMBER, 2021

P.C. :

1.

The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in

connection with C.R.No. 121 of 2020 registered at New Panvel

Police Station, Navi Mumbai, on 20/08/2020, under sections 3, 11

and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the

Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act

1963 (for short ‘MOFA’).

2.

Heard Shri. Pradeep Thorat, learned counsel for the

1 of 7

Gokhale

VINOD

BHASKAR

GOKHALE

Digitally

signed by

VINOD

BHASKAR

GOKHALE

Date:

2021.09.22

14:34:04

+0530

: 2 :

02-aba-975-20.odt

applicants, Smt. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State and Shri.

Pratik Rahade, learned counsel for the Intervenor.

3.

The First Information Report (for short ‘

F.I.R.) is

lodged by one Dinesh Gaware. He has stated that, in October

2017, he got information about a project of construction which

was being developed by M/s. Grow Plus Infra Developers. It is

alleged in the F.I.R. that, all the applicants are partners of the firm.

The informant went to the site of the project. He liked the project.

There were 327 flats for sale. The project was to be completed on

31/12/2018. The informant booked his flat in December 2017. It

is mentioned in the F.I.R. that the builder showed him the

Occupancy Certificate (for short ‘

O.C.’

) and other documents. The

informant was given possession of the flat in February 2018. He

started residing there. It is his case that, the builder had charged

Rs.250/- per square feet for O.C. According to him, that amount

was not kept in a separate account, which he was duty bound to

maintain. The first informant came to know from other members

in the society that the O.C. shown to them was not valid. The

informant discussed this issue with other members. They made

2 of 7

: 3 :

02-aba-975-20.odt

further inquiries and they came to know that the O.C. was given by

the Gram Panchyat, but the Gram Panchayat did not have

authority to give that O.C. The society members decided to meet

the builder, but he did not meet them. On 01/09/2019 it was

informed by the builder that a General meeting of the society was

to be held on 15/09/2019. He also informed the flat owners that

the society was registered on 04/07/2019. The general meeting

was held on 15/09/2019. It is his case that, after registration of

the society the land was required to be conveyed in its favour

within 120 days, but it was not done. The F.I.R. itself mentions

that, according to the first informant, the procedure adopted for

registration of the society was not correct and, therefore, the

informant and others filed proceedings before the Deputy Registrar

of Co-Operative Societies, at Konkan Bhavan, CBD, Belapur. The

proceedings are still pending. On these allegations the F.I.R. was

lodged.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicants invited my attention

to the application made by the applicant No.1 and his firm on

17/02/2012 to the Collector for permission to convert the land to

3 of 7

: 4 :

02-aba-975-20.odt

non agricultural status. The permission was granted on

30/01/2013. He submitted that, Sanad was granted in respect of

the same land by the Collector vide his order dated 30/10/2020.

In that Sanad, it was observed that the builder had constructed his

project by following conditions of permission. Shri. Thorat

submitted that the Collector had passed his orders under

Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of Use of Land and Non

Agriculture Assessment) Ru