O-B.A.No.515/2024
1
Dt.05.07.2024
MHCC020099492024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M. P. I. D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, Gr. BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 515 OF 2024
IN
CRIME NO. 131 OF 2024
Dilip Bharat Manghnani
Of Mumbai, Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Age 48 years, Occupation : Business,
Residing at : 601, Supreme Serenity,
16th Road, Near Khar Gymkhana,
Khar (West),Mumbai-400052
…Applicant/
Accused
Versus
State of Maharashtra
(through Bandra Police Station)
…Respondent
Coram : HHJ Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar
(Court No. 20)
Date
: 05.07.2024
Appearance:
Senior Counsel Shri Aabad Ponda, a/w Adv. Mr. Ashwin Shete
a/w Adv. Mr. Santosh Avhad a/w Adv. Vidhi Karia i/b Jayakars
and Partners for the applicant/accused.
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, applicant/accused Dilip Bharat
Manghnani prayed for grant of bail under Section 437 of the Code of
O- B.A.515/2024
2
Dt.05.07.2024
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-in-after 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. F-1245, 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
O- B.A.515/2024
3
Dt.05.07.2024
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 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 heed 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.

Senior counsel Shri Aabad Ponda submitted that, applicant
is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Applicant has no criminal
antecedent. Applicant is from reputed family and have deep root in
society. Applicant has fully co-operated investigating agency. No where
in the FIR it is mentioned that money is deposited in the applicant’s
account. Applicant became partner of M/s Suchit Developer in the year
2013 and building construction project is struck off since 2009.
Applicant is ready and willing to abide all the condition put by court, if
he is released on bail. Applicant will not misuse the liberty and will not
abscond from the jurisdiction of this court. In support of his argument.
Ld. advocate for the applicant 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,
O- B.A.515/2024
4
Dt.05.07.2024
409, 420, and 120(B) r/w 34 of the IPC 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 it 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.

O- B.A.515/2024
07.

5
Dt.05.07.2024
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 paidRs.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 8th floor, but till the year 2009 there was no
progress. On 28.01.2015 complainant received an email from office of
Mr. Lachman Sajnani 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,
FIR is lodged against the accused on 02.04.2023 and applicant/accused
was arrested on 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
O- B.A.515/2024
6
Dt.05.07.2024
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
applicant 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, Applicant 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 applicant/accused
that, as applicant/accused is in judicial custody and settlement is arose
at the end of argument on bail application, applicant/accused is
instructed his advocate/counsel to sign the consent terms on his behalf.
Ld. advocate for the applicant 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
O- B.A.515/2024
7
affirmative
and
further
Dt.05.07.2024
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 applicant 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.12.
13.

In view of Consent Terms (Exh.12) 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.
Dilip
The Bail Application No.515 of 2024 filed by applicant/accused
Bharat
Manghnani
is
allowed
in
terms of consent
terms(Exh.12).
2.

The applicant/accused namely Dilip Bharat Manghnani be
released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty
Thousand Only) 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 accused shall attend the Bandra Police Station as and when
required
by
the
investigating
officer
intimation/notice till filing of the charge sheet.

only
on
his
written
O- B.A.515/2024
5.

8
Dt.05.07.2024
The accused and the surety 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 accused shall not threaten or influence the prosecution
witnesses and hamper investigation.
7.

The accused shall not leave territory of India without prior
permission of the court.
8.

Bail before this court.

9.

Applicant/accused is directed to remain before this court within
three days after his released from jail and to sign Consent Terms.
10.

The Bail Application No. 515 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.

Digitally signed by
ABHIJEET ARVIND
NANDGAONKAR
Date: 2024.07.16
18:04:18 +0530
(Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar)
Designated Judge under MPID Act, C.R.NO.20
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay.

Dt. 05/07/2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
:
:
:
05.07.2024
05.07.2024 (AHO)
15.07.2024 (HHJ official duty as Trainer to Advocate
Mediators officers since 6th to 10th and 12th to 14th July 24.

O- B.A.515/2024
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 15.07.2024
P.O.
Judgment/order uploaded on
15.07.2024