1
BEFORE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
AT
BOMBAY CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, AT
MUMBAI.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2015.
IN
R.A.NO. 37 OF 2014.
Amir Manzur Khan,
Age: 28 years.
Residing at : House No.1, Room No.3,
Josepth Patel Compound, Gate No.7,
Malvani, MaladнW, Mumbai 400 095.

Е.Applicant.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
at the instance of Malwani Police Station
in C.R.No.329 of 2014.

ЕRespondent.

Adv.Nishant I/b Adv.Jyoti Pande for Applicant.
SPP Adv. Kanojia for State.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri D.P. Surana.
Dated : 24th February, 2015.
ORAL ORDER
1.

Applicant Amir Manzur Khan, who was came to be arrested
2
on 24/12/2014 in C.R.No.329/2014 of Malwani Police station for the
offence u/sec.420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 170 r/w sec.34 & sec.
120нB of the I.P. Code and sec.3 & 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (in
short M.P.I.D. Act), by this application u/sec.439 r/w 437 the Cr.P.C.
has prayed to enlarge him on bail.
2.

It is the case of prosecution that, co нaccused Rakesh Seth
and Abdul Khan were searching for the persons in need of flats in
Mumbai. Such persons were induced that they would be given
MHADA flats at concessional rate. That such persons were then taken
to Amir Imran Academy situated at Sai Sadan Building, Shop no.
3/4/5 MHADA, Malwani, Malad West, Mumbai н95 where coнaccused
Amir Khan (present applicant), Imran Khan and Sarfaraj Khan used
to give them further false representation of providing MHADA Flats
contending that, they are having good relations with MHADA
officers.

Such persons were shown forge and false documents of
MHADA and thereby induced them to deposit money on the basis of
such false documents. More amount incashed was extracted from
such victim on the pretext of extra FSI. Then such persons from
whom amounts towards MHADA flats were accepted, were taken in
front of MHADA office. Pramod Kedar Singhania was falsely
personated to be a MHADA officer and extra amount of Rs.87,000/н
incash was again extracted from such victims, on the false promises
providing MHADA flats.

3
It is alleged that the present applicant is also a master mind
and main accused of the crime and has induced investors. He has
directly received the huge amount from the victims and has also
transferred the amount to the account of coнaccused.
3.

Heard Adv. Nishant for applicant. Also heard Ld. SPP Adv.

Kanojia for State. Adv. Nishant submitted that, applicant is
sufficiently interrogated by police. Chargesheet is filed and
investigation is completed. That no purpose will be served in keeping
applicant behind the bars. He submitted that applicant himself is
induced and has paid Rs.8.92 Lakhs cash to obtain MHADA flat and
he is a victim and not a culprit. That he is shown as victim in FIR
also. He argued to show how the witnesses are stating false against
him and are unreliable. He submitted that the amount deposited in
his account was on the instructions of coнaccused Imran Khan which
was refund to Kamran Khan and Imran Khan and other individuals
on the instructions of accused Imran Khan and no amount is utilized
by the applicant. That applicant has cooperated in the investigation
and there is no possibility of his absconding. He will be available for
the trial which will take time. As such, he submitted that accused be
granted bail.
4.

As against this Ld. SPP and IO in one voice opposed the
application contending that, matter is serious. There is prima facie
involvement of the applicant as a main accused in commission of the
4
crime. He is one of the main conspirator of the crime. That
investigation is still in progress. That out of 11 accused, 4 are still
wanted accused. At present only 74 investors have come forward
whereas, at the time of chargesheet, there were 69 investors. That
the total dupted amount of 69 investors was Rs.7,61,39,650/н. That
applicant has directly received huge amount in cash and cheque from
the investors.

That there are instances that the amount are
transferred from the bank account to the co accused to the bank
account of other coнaccused which shows their involvement in the
crime. That the total amount received by the accused Rs.24 Lkahs by
cheque and cash from the investors /victims which may increase. As
per SPP release of applicant may create hurdle in the investigation.
5.

After hearing rival contentions, I have perused the
application, reply Exh.2 filed by the I.O., chargesheet papers and the
several tabular forms submitted bu I.O. showing the involvement of
each accused.
6.

No doubt that chargesheet is filed in the alleged crime
but 4 accused are yet to be arrested. I.O. has kept open the window
of further investigation u/s 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. On perusal of the
chargesheet papers, which tallies with the chart given by the I.O., it is
clear that as on the date of filing of chargesheet. 12 investors have
alleged payment of huge amount of Rs.24 lakhs to the present
applicant. From the chargesheet papers it also seem that witness has
5
categorically stated that it was the present applicant who gave them
false assurance and accepted amount towards allotment of MAHADA
flats. For conveyance the chart in tabular form, showing the amount
received by the present applicant and the total defrauded amount of
such investors and the role attributed to the present applicant by
such witnesses/ investors is reproduced herein below.
v╪1
2
3
4
lk-╪-
Lkk{khnkjka p s Ukko
05
06
07
14
jes ‘ k iq Y ys g ihPphdk
jes ‘ k eka x q y h iz / kku
eks g Een guhd ‘ks [ k
Jhfuokl xq I rk js M Mh
5
17
lq j s [ kk foBBy nkHkks G dj
6
7
8
19
21
22
vehr vuhy vkoVs
eks g u fot; vka c ks u dj
jkts ‘ k ckykHkkbZ fodkuh
9
10
29
59
11
60
12
61
ehjk jkts a n z ba V ks n h;k
ukjk;.kyky
prjkth
es M rh;k
ykyw j ke
‘ka d jyky
es M rh;k
glhuk dyheq Y yk ‘ks [ k
,dw.k
7.

%&
xq U g;krhy iz R ;{k
lgHkkx
iz k s R lkgu
iz k s R lkgu
iz k s R lkgu
IyWV nk[kfoyk-
Qlo.kq d hph ,
dq . k jDde
11]52]050@&
14]01]050@&
15]38]050@&
11]21]250@&
iz k s R lkgu@2-5 yk[k
ps d us ?ks r ys
iz k s R lkgu
dkxni= fnys
10-5 yk[k jks [ k
?ks r ys @ dkxni= fnys iz k s R lkgu
4 yk[k jks [ k
?ks r ys @ iz k s R lkgu
4 yk[k jks [ k
?ks r ys @ iz k s R lkgu
iz k s R lkgu@3 yk[k
fLodkjys
24]00]000@&
12]88]050@&
8]87]050@&
11]37]050@&
16]37]100@&
10]88]050@&
12]87]000@&
12]87]000@&
5]00]000@&
It also seems from the another chart filed by the I.O. that
the the total amount of Rs.31/н only was found lying in the 3 seized
bank accounts of the applicant accused. The above charts tallies with
the chargesheet papers. As per I.O. investigation is still in progress.
From chargesheet papers it is apparently seen that the present
accused in conspiracy with other coнaccused has committed the said
6
fraud and dupted the hard earning of several investors. This is not
the ordinary case of fraudulent default wherein investors seems to be
greedy and invested their amount for and out of their greed to earn
more money. In the city like Mumbai even the middle class peoples
have their last dream to have their owned shelter. In the case in
hand there is a preнplaned design to dupe such victims in need of
shelter by giving them false assurances of MAHADA flats, knowingly
that such assurance is false and cannot be fulfilled. Hence the case of
NSEL wherein, Co accused Jignesh Shah was granted bail by Hon’ble
High Court and relied by the applicant is not applicable in the case is
hand. Crores of Rupees are siphoned by the accused acting in
conspiracy with coнaccused. Such 74 victims only at present have
come forward. There may be other victims too who may be traced
out during further investigation which is in progress. The release of
applicant under above circumstances will definitely hampered the
further investigation.
8.

The contention of applicant that, he is shown a investor
in FIR is correct. But the role of applicant to be one of the instigator
to several investors is apparently from the statement of witnesses
reflected in above chart. FIR is not a encyclopedia. Applicant may
have as a part of conspiracy to save himself have plotted himself as a
victim whereas, from chargesheet papers he apparently seems to be
one of the main accused in perpetrating the crime.

Hence the
contention of applicant can not be taken into consideration. So also
7
the reliability or non reliability of the witnesses can be seen only at
the time of trial and not at this stage. So also the contention of the
applicant that he is not a beneficiary in the crime can not be accepted
as witnesses has stated the payment amount to the applicant.
9.

Irrespective of the fact that, chargesheet is filed, a
balance is required to be struck between the magnitude of offence
ramifications of the same and continuance of the investigation and it
is to be seen whether there is possibility of tampering of prosecution
witnesses or availability or non availability of the applicant. In my
view there is strong possibility of tampering with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence, as the case pertains to fabrication of false
documents too. When the applicant is alleged to have acted in
conspiracy with the coнaccused, at present no significance can be
given to the fact that who fabricated the false documents. Whereas
there are specific allegations of the witnesses that applicant handed
over allotment letter to them. The offences leveled against the
applicant prescribed punishment upto life imprisonment. Apparently
investigation seems to be going on u/sec.173 (8) of the Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the said fact and considering the aspect that the
amount was collected on the bogus and false assurance of providing
MAHADA flats to the investors/victims and they were deceived on
the basis of false and fabricated documents of allotment letters of
flats whereas, no such flats were provided, I am of the view that
there is strong prima facie case made out against the accused and
8
there is ailment of defection since beginning and there is strong
possibility of tampering of the witnesses by the applicant if, he is
released on bail and hence applicant, who is one of the main accused
is not entitled for the liberty claimed. In the result I proceed to pass
following order.
ORDER
Bail Application no.2 of 2015 stands rejected.

Date 24/02/2015.

(D.P. Surana)
Special Judge, M.P.I.D. Act. &
Addl. Sessions Judge, (C.R. No.36)
City Civil & Sessions Court,
At Bombay.

9