O-B.A.No.516/2024 MHCC020099412024 Dt.05.07.2024

BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M. P. I. D. ACT CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, Gr. BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 516 OF 2024 IN CRIME NO. 520 OF 2024

1. Anant A. Rane of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
Residing At 703, Marvel Residency, Nanda Patkar Road, Vile Parle (East)
Mumbai – 400 057

2. Vikrant Sharad Vaidya
Age 58 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Occupation : Architect,
Having Address At Grand Bela Vista,
6/700, S.V.Road, Bandra (West),
Mumbai – 400 050. …Applicants/Original
Accused Nos 1 and 2

Versus

State of Maharashtra

(Through PI Bandra Police Station) …Respondent

Coram : HHJ Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar (Court No. 20) Date : 05.07.2024

Appearance:
Ld. Advocate Rohan Mahadik a/w Mr. Pramod Londhe i/b The Juris Partners for the applicant.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Vijay Jha i/b Law Juris for Intervener.
Ld. APP. Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar for the Respondent/State-EOW.

ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

By way of this application, applicants/accused Anant A. Rane and Vikrant Sharad Vaidya prayed for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here in after referred as “Cr.P.C.” ) in connection with Crime No. 520/2024 registered with Bandra Police station for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120(B) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Here-inafter referred as “I.P.C.”) r/w Section 3 and 4 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (here-in-after referred as “MPID”) and Section 5 r/w13(1) and Section 5 r/w 13(2) of The Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (here-in-after referred as “MOFA”)

02.Bone of allegation as per FIR is that, Complainant Smt. Meena Tavrani and her 19 years old son were looking for home to live. One Kishan Samtani introduced the complainant to one Bharat Magnani (deceased, then one of the partner of M/s Suchit Developers), who informed the complainant about their project in process, he made several representations about goodwill and reputation of their firm. After ascertaining the veracity of the fact that M/s Suchit Developers has obtained development right of CTS No. F1245, 1246, 1247 and 1248 in Rangari Chawl, Sawant Block, Jari Mari Mandir Road, Bandra(West), Mumbai 400 050, and Aryan Tower building was going to be constructed on
said land, the Complainant booked a three BHK flat, No.901 admeasuring 1000 Sq.ft. with car parking in Aryan Tower Building.

03.It is the case that, Complainant has paid Rs.30,00,000/- in pursuance of the Agreement (Sale Deed) by cheque bearing No. 113344 Dated 05.12.2005. Receipt against payment of said amount and letter of allotment were issued to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant has paid Rs. 40,00,000/- by two separate cheques bearing No. 101729 dated 09.06.2006 and cheque bearing No. 101722 dated 10.06.2006 in favour of M/s Suchit Developers. Till the year 2009, construction was completed up to 8th floor, but thereafter there was no progress. On 28.01.2015 complainant received an email
from office of Mr. Lachman Sajnani (applicant) demanding amount of Rs. 92,52,000/- towards escalation charges. Complainant paid Rs.15,00,000/- by cheque bearing No.483196 to M/s Suchit
Developers. As complainant did not get possession of flat she wrote a letter to the partners of M/s Suchit Developers to execute and register the agreement for sale and complete the construction of the
said building. But still partners of M/s Suchit Developers did not pay heed to her. Due to mental stress complainant filed civil suit in Bombay High Court. In said suit Court Receiver is appointed. Suit is
still pending before Hon’ble High Court. Hence, FIR is lodged against the accused on 02.04.2023. Accused is arrested by police on 24.06.2024 at 7.10 am and produced before court for remand.

04.Ld. Advocate for theapplicants submitted that, applicants are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. There is no iota of evidence or material on record to show involvement of the applicants are present offence and in absence of their involvement in crime applicants can not be put behind that bars. Informant has given criminal angle to a purely civil dispute with malafide agenda by using police as a recovery tool. Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 and 120-B does not constituted as Section 406 of IPC deals with entrustment and 420 deals with inducement and misrepresentation which are not applicable to the applicant. Section 409 is not applicable as applicants is not public servant. Applicants are from reputed families and have deep root in society.
investigating agency.

Applicants have fully co-operated Applicants are ready and willing to abide all the condition put by court, if they released on bail. Applicants will not misuse the liberty and will not abscond from the jurisdiction of this court. In support of their argument. Ld. advocate for the applicants relied on certain citation of Apex Court and prayed that bail application be allowed.

05.Ld. A.P.P. Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar submitted that, FIR is lodged against accused for the offence punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, and 120(B) r/w 34 of the I.P.C. r/w Section 3 and 4 of The
MPID Act, and Section 5 r/w 13(1) and Section 5 r/w 13(2) of The MOFA Act, which is serious social economic offence and non bailable in nature. Total amount of Rs.1,63,00,000/- has been paid by seven
investors. Investigation is yet to be completed. Investigation pertaining to bank details, property involved in this crime and of M/s Suchit Developer is required to be carried out. Since the year 2005
construction of building is commenced, but till today is not completed and possession of flat is not handed over to the complainant who is a widow. If the accused is released on bail there is grave chance of tampering the prosecution evidence and absconding of accused. Hence Ld. APP prayed that, considering the seriousness and severity of offence and punishment prescribed for the offence, bail application be rejected.

06.Investigating officer submitted that, investigation in respect of Mr. Vikrat Vaidya and Anant Rane who are the founder of M/s Suchit developer and its later three partners is required to be completed. Investigation pertaining to bank details, property involved in this crime and of M/s Suchit Developer is required to be carried out. Why and how partners of M/s Suchit Developers failed to erect building Aryan Tower within stipulated time in required to be traced. Huge amount of Rs.1,63,00,000/- of complainant and investors are involved in this crime the trail of that money required to be excavated. Complainant is widow, has paid flat amount of Rs. 85,00,000/- by selling her own property and now she is home less, staying on live and license basis. If the accused is released on bail there is grave chance of tampering the investigation and applicant may be abscond. Hence prayed that bail application be
rejected.

07.Ld. Adv. Mr. Vijay Jha for the intervenor submitted that, complainant is 70 years widow and sole earning person of her family. With great difficulties she could bring up her three children pursing
their education. For securing future of her children she decided to purchase flat at Mumbai and for which she has sold her husband ancestral property situated at Hyderabad. She was introduced to one
Bharat Magnani (deceased, then one of the partner of M/s Suchit Developers) by Kishan Samtani. Mr. Bharat Magnani explained her about their project in process, he made several representations about
goodwill and reputation of their firm. Hence, complainant booked three BHK flat No.901 admeasuring 1000 Sq.ft. with car parking in Aryan Tower Building. Pursuant to that complainant paid Rs. 30,00,000/- towards Sale Deed Agreement vide cheque bearing No. 113344 Dated 05.12.2005. Complainant
has also paid Rs.40,00,000/- by two separate cheques bearing No. 101729 dated 09.06.2006 and cheque bearing No. 101722 dated 10.06.2006 in favour of M/s Suchit Developers. Building was constructed up to 8 th floor, but till the year 2009 there was no progress. On 28.01.2015 complainant received an email from office of applicant demanding amount of Rs. 92,52,000/- towards escalation charges. Complainant paid Rs. 15,00,000/-by cheque bearing No.483196 to M/s Suchit Developers. As complainant did not get possession of flat till 2018, due to mental stress complainant filed civil suit in Bombay High Court. In said suit Court Receiver is appointed. Suit is still pending before Hon’ble High Court.

08. Ld. Adv. Mr. Vijay Jha for the intervenor submitted that, is lodged against the accused applicant/accused was arrested on on 02.04.2023 and 24.06.2024 at 7.10. am and produced before court for seeking his police custody for custodial interrogation. Investigation is not yet completed. Strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant/accused pertaining to their deep involvement in the offence of high magnitude which effected large number people from down drawn strata of society. As all parameters required for considering bail application are against the applicant/accused, Ld. advocate for intervenor prayed that applicant may not be released on bail and his application be rejected.

09.Vehemently hearing argument of Ld advocate for the applicants and Ld APP for the State. I have also extensively heard Ld. advocate for the intervenor and Investigating officer too for entire two days.

10.At the fag end of hearing on second day, Applicants and complainant arrived for settlement. They submitted that complainant and accused have amicably settled their dispute and intended to file
Consent terms to that effect on their own free will and no coercion or fraud has been played upon the.

11.It is informed by the Ld. advocate for the applicants/accused that, as applicants/accused are in judicial custody and settlement is arose at the end of argument on bail application, applicants/accused is instructed their advocate/counsel to sign the consent terms on his behalf. Ld. advocate for the applicants undertakes to this court that accused will signed on Consent Terms within three days after his released from jail. So also complainant/first informant who is not available in court today. But she signed Consent Terms. Son of the complainant/first informant is present before the court. He sign on consent terms as per the instruction of first informant/complainant.

12.I have very careful gone through the consent terms. I have called son of the complainant in witness box and asked him, whether he has gone through the contains of Consent Terms. He replied in affirmative and further stated that he himself and his mother/complainant have personally gone through the contains consent terms and even their advocate make them thoroughly understood it.

Only after understanding the contains of Consent Terms they signed on consent terms by their own wish and without anybody force. Ld. Advocate who signed on behalf of the applicants also affirmed with contains of Consent Term and shown their willingness to abide with it. Hence, Consent Terms is t.o.r. and marked as Exh.7.

13.In view of Consent Terms (Exh.7) question of further entertaining bail application to decide on merit does not arise as the matter is settled amicably between the parties. The accused who was taken in judicial custody needs to be released on following condition.

ORDER

1.The Bail applicants/accused Application No.516 of 2024 filed by Anant A. Rane and Vikrant Sharad Vaidya is allowed in terms of consent terms (Exh.7).

2.The applicants/accused namely Anant A. Rane and Vikrant Sharad Vaidya be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with one or two solvent
sureties of the like amount in Crime No.520/2023 registered at Bandra Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120(B) r/w 34 of the IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of The
MPID Act and Section 5 r/w 13(1) and Section 5 r/w 13(2) of The MOFA

3.Cash security of Rs. 50,000/- is permitted provisionally for the period of one month in lieu of the surety bond.

4.The applicants/accused shall attend the Bandra Police Station as and when required by the investigating officer only on his written intimation/notice till filing of the charge sheet.

5.The applicants/accused and their sureties shall inform the police authorities as well as the trial court, the change of their residential address while the accused is on bail.

6.The applicants/accused shall not threaten or influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper investigation.

7.The applicants/accused shall not leave territory of India without prior permission of the court.

8.Bail before this court.

9.Applicants/accused is directed to remain before this court within three days after their released from jail and to sign Consent Terms.

10.The Bail Application No. 516 of 2024 stands disposed of

Digitally signed by ABHIJEET ARVIND NANDGAONKAR Date: 2024.07.23 14:55:15 +0530 accordingly. Dt. 05/07/2024 Dictated on Transcribed on Signed on : : : (Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar) Designated Judge under MPID Act, C.R.NO.20 Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay.
05.07.2024 22.07.2024 (AHO) 22.07.2024 HHJ was on official duty as Trainer to Advocate Mediators officers since 6 th to 10th and 12th to 14th July 2024. 17th and 20th July Holidays. Matter is gone to department for certified copy and received back 19.07.2024 hence delay is caused in transcribing)
O- B.A.516/2024 9 Dt.05.07.2024 CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”. 05.07.2024 Mrs. R. R. Hate Name of the Judge HHJ Shri Abhijeet A.
Nandgaonkar Date of Pronouncement of judgment/order 05.07.2024 Judgment and order signed by 23.07.2024 P.O. Judgment/order uploaded on 23.07.2024