The Court of Session for Greater Bombay has refused to grant regular bail to Soheb Nabiullah Khan (Applicant/A3), one of the accused in a complex and high-value MHADA house allotment scam. The order, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge M. G. Deshpande on April 4, 2024, in Bail Application No. 849 of 2024, firmly rejected the applicant’s claims of parity with co-accused who received bail, emphasizing his active participation in inducing and cheating the informant from the very beginning of the criminal conspiracy. Khan faces serious charges under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 120B (Criminal conspiracy), 420 (Cheating), 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, and 473 (relating to forgery of valuable security and making or possessing counterfeit seals), registered at the Kurla Police Station under C.R. No. 173/2023.
The Allegations of Systematic Cheating and Forgery
The prosecution’s case is based on an FIR lodged by Mr. Nasir Zahoor Ahmad Shaikh on May 15, 2023. The informant, who was desperately seeking a house for his large family, was introduced to the main accused, Hussain Ahmad Khan, by a friend. Hussain Khan, along with the applicant, Shoeb Khan (Soheb Nabiullah Khan), and others, allegedly created a sophisticated facade of having high-level connections with MHADA officers. The scam involved an intricate scheme wherein the accused promised the informant an allotment of a flat in Kohinoor and Premium Kurla for a price of Rs. 70 lakhs. The process involved multiple staged meetings at various locations, including a fake office, Ram Mahal Hotel, and the actual flat site, to build credibility. Over time, the informant and his wife, Mrs. Nasreen Shaikh, were induced to pay a total of Rs. 45,00,000/- for one flat and an additional Rs. 18,00,000/- for a second flat in Vikhroli Kannamwar Nagar for the wife, totaling a massive loss. The fraudulent acts escalated to the presentation of a bogus Allotment Letter on a fake MHADA letterhead with counterfeit photographs, signatures, and stamps, and even included a “drama” of online registration and biometric scans to extract more money, revealing the depth of the conspiracy and the calculated deception involved.
Rejection of Parity and Finding of Aggravated Role
The applicant, through Ld. Adv. Ms. Anjali Patil, primarily sought bail claiming parity with co-accused Vishnu Tripathi, who was granted bail by the High Court, and Vaseem Raja Shaikh, who received anticipatory bail. However, the Court meticulously dissected the facts to reject this claim. Judge Deshpande highlighted that the applicant, Shoeb Khan, was an “active participant” from the “inception” of the crime. The first meeting regarding the house search, which set the entire scam in motion, took place at the informant’s shop, and the applicant was present, actively participating alongside Hussain Ahmad Khan in inducing the informant. The applicant and Hussain Khan were the ones who promised and induced the informant to spend Rs. 70 Lakhs and showed various documents on their mobiles, creating the initial false representation.
Furthermore, the Investigating Officer, in the reply (Exh. 2), confirmed that the applicant had received Rs. 1,50,000/- directly into his bank account, a fact that was noted by the Court as concrete evidence of his financial benefit from the crime. The Court explicitly differentiated his case from a co-accused, Rajesh @ Nilesh Mithailal Vishwakarma, whose bail was recently granted by the Court due to his role not indicating “active involvement.” The Judge concluded that the applicant’s role was “aggravated than the role of the other accused persons,” thus rendering the claim of parity invalid.
Conclusion: No Strong Prima Facie Case for Bail
In its concluding remarks, the Sessions Court deemed the applicant’s offense a “clear case how the cheaters cheat the residents in Mumbai, who are in ardent need of house.” Given the applicant’s active role in the conspiracy, the recovery of money in his account, and the nature of the calculated fraud involving multiple forged documents, the Court determined that no strong prima-facie case was made out to warrant release on bail. While noting that co-accused had received relief, the Court stressed that the applicant’s involvement in the continuous deception, from the initial promise to the final act of forgery and extortion, was too deep to ignore at this stage. Accordingly, Bail Application No. 849 of 2024 was rejected. The Court, however, issued a directive to the Ld. Court of First Instance to take care of the undertrial prisoner and expedite the trial proceedings, ensuring that while liberty is denied, justice is not unduly delayed.