O-B.A.No.517/2024
1
Dt.05.07.2024
MHCC020099502024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M. P. I. D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, Gr. BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 517 OF 2024
IN
CRIME NO. 520 OF 2024
Lachmandas Sobhrajmal Sajnani
Age: 82, Occupation : [Semi Retired]
Aryan CHS, 7th Floor, Deonar Farm Chembur, …Applicant
Mumbai 400088.
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 Ashish Chavan a/w Advocate Mr. Sanket Mone
a/w Advocate S. Chakrabarti, Advocate Sayee Sawan i/b Vidhii
Partners for 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, applicant/accused Lachmandas
Sobhrajmal Sajnani 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
O- B.A.517/2024
2
Dt.05.07.2024
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. 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 8 th 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
O- B.A.517/2024
3
Dt.05.07.2024
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.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, applicant
is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Informant has given
criminal angle to a purely civil dispute with malafide agenda by using
police as a recovery tool. Rehab building for original residents was
ready in the year 2006 and hand over to original residents itself and
Aryan Tower is a sale building from which firm M/s Suchit
Developers would earn profit. Thus applicant being partner of the
firm eagerly taking efforts for completion of building, no plausible
benefit could be derived by delaying the same. Applicant has made
all the effort since the year 2006 to revive the project and complete
it. There are no other investor apart from complainant filed
complaint against the applicant. Section 13 of MOFA prescribes
punishment for failures/contraventions made by promoters but delay
is cause for multiple changes in rules and regulations of the SRA.
Sections 409, 406 and 420 r/w 34 and 120-B does not constituted as
same require malafide intention whereas applicant has made all the
efforts to complete the project without dragging it. Section 409 is not
applicable as applicant is not public servant. Applicant is 80 years
O- B.A.517/2024
4
Dt.05.07.2024
suffering from cardiac problems and other age related ailments and
required family support in his day to day activities. There is delay of
15 years in filing FIR. Applicant is from reputed family and have
deep root in society. Applicant has fully co-operated investigating
agency. 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,
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
O- B.A.517/2024
5
Dt.05.07.2024
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
O- B.A.517/2024
6
Dt.05.07.2024
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.
FIR
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
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 flag 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.

O- B.A.517/2024
11.

7
It
is
informed
Dt.05.07.2024
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 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 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.6.
13.

In view of Consent Terms (Exh.6) 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 Application No.517 of 2024 filed by applicant/accused
O- B.A.517/2024
8
Dt.05.07.2024
Lachmandas Sobhrajmal Sajnani is
allowed
in
terms of consent
terms (Exh.6).
2.

The
applicant/accused
namely
Lachmandas
Sobhrajmal
Sajnani 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 only on his written
intimation/notice till filing of the charge sheet.
5.

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.

O- B.A.517/2024
10.

9
The Bail Application No. 517 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.

Digitally signed by ABHIJEET
ARVIND NANDGAONKAR
Date: 2024.07.23 14:56:17
+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
00
Dt.05.07.2024
:
:
:
05.07.2024
22.07.2024 (AHO)
23.07.2024 HHJ was on official duty as Trainer to
Advocates Mediators officers since 6th to 10th and 12th to 14th
July 24.17th 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.517/2024
10
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 22.07.2024
P.O.
Judgment/order uploaded on
23.07.2024