:1:
Order in BA no. 964/24
MHCC020061352024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 964 OF 2024
IN
C.R. NO.83 OF 2022
Suresh Meghraj Shroff
Age – 65 years, Occ – Developer
Residing at Sheela Niwas, R. C. Marg,
Opp. Post Office, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400 057.

]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW, Mumbai)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Abad Ponda along with Ld. Advocate Chittesh M. Dalmia
for the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Satyadev Joshi for Intervenor – Reshma Rathod.
Ld. Advocate Aditya Mehta for Intervenor, Mohd. Ali Kochra.
Ld. Advocate Ashlesha Modak along with Ld. Advocate Priyanka
Srivastava i/b Auris Legal for Intervenor – Hemal Mehta.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 4th May, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Suresh Meghraj Shroff resident of Vile Parle (E), Mumbai, under
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
:2:
Order in BA no. 964/24
regular bail.
2.

A case being C.R. No.83 of 2022 is registered with EOW,
Mumbai (C.R. No.527/22 registered with Juhu Police Station)
against the present Applicant for the offence punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) as well as
Sections 3, 4, 5, 8 and 13 of The Maharashtra Ownership Flats
(Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management
and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred as “MOFA Act”).

3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing its say at
Exhibit No.05.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
Since 2014, accused being Director of M/s. S. V. K. Project LLP
Company, by making collusion with other accused induced
various investors to invest in their project “Splendour” at
Vileparle, Andheri i.e. to purchase flats therein. The investors
were shown various Government permits obtained to construct
the apartments, brochure, plan etc. and thereby, won their trust.
They were induced to purchase flats in the project. Investors have
invested their hard earned money in the project. Applicant /
accused have received amount of Rs.11,59,81,014/- (Rupees
Eleven Crores Fifty Nine Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Fourteen
only). They have not completed the construction project and left
it half done. They have neither given flats to the purchasers nor
return the funds. Accordingly, report came to be lodged.

:3:
5.

Order in BA no. 964/24
Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer and Ld. Advocates for the
informants / intervenors.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant filed written submissions on
behalf of applicant vide Exh.08 i.e. synopsis of his argument. It
contents that, the dispute between the parties relates to project
known as ‘Splendour’ which consist of total 19 flats out of them 9
flat owners have lodged report. Applicant have settled the dispute
with them and entered into settlement / consent terms which is
filed in commercial arbitration no.144 of 2021 before the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Accordingly, the said
petition is disposed off.

7.

It is further submitted that, only objecting intervenor Mrs.
Reshma Rathod has no concern with the present applicant. Her
husband Kiran Rathod has paid amount of Rs.3 Crores but he has
not filed intervention application. The said amount was paid in
another project at Malad. Matter is settled with Mr. Kiran Rathod.
MoU to that effect was executed which was acted upon.
Intervenor is also a beneficiary of consent terms. Her name
reflects on Annexure ‘G’ of the consent term. Therefore, it is
submitted that a minority flat owner cannot stall the project or
rule over the majority decision. In support of his contention Ld.
Advocate for the applicant relied upon the judgment in the case
of Raj M. Ahuja and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr.
Mumbai, wherein it is observed as, ‘ It is a settled position in law
that the interest of the minority occupants / tenants cannot be
opposed to the interest of the majority occupants, as also such
:4:
Order in BA no. 964/24
persons cannot foist on the owners a delay in commencement of
the redevelopment work, resulting in the project cost being
increased, which would be seriously prejudicial to the owners/
developers and above all the majority of the occupants.’
8.

As against this, Ld. Advocate for the intervenor objected the
bail application on merit. He has filed bunch of documents to
show the transaction between the parties. It is the contention of
intervenor that, her interest were not secured through the
consent terms between the parties. Much has been argued to
show prima facie concern of the applicant with the charges
leveled against him regarding forgery, cheating etc. Ld. SPP has
also supported the contesting intervenor and objected the bail
application.

9.

In view of settlement between the informant and other 8 flat
owners, consent terms were finalized and executed. The said
consent terms were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay. On the basis of such consent terms,
informant
and
other
intervenors
have
withdrawn
their
intervention and have filed no objection for grant of bail to the
applicant. They have also filed an affidavit vide Exh.10 and
recorded no objection for grant of bail to the applicant. In this
case, applicant is behind bar since 28.02.2024. Other accused,
who is the partner in project is already released on bail. Chargesheet has been filed against the applicant. Thus, prima facie it
reveals that, the investigation is mostly complete.

:5:
Order in BA no. 964/24
In such circumstances, no purpose would be served by
10.

languishing the applicant behind bar. Moreover, if the applicant
would remain behind bar, consent terms cannot be acted upon. A
profitable reference can be taken from the judgment relied upon
by the Ld. Advocate for the applicant which set ups legal position
that, ‘a minority flat owner cannot stall the project or rule over
the majority decision, who takes a collective decision for the
welfare of all the people.’ None consent of only one member
certainly would not good as the other 9 members / investors have
given their consent for settlement. Withholding consent by only
one member would affect the rights of other majority investors.
11.

It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the applicant
that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is ready to
abide any condition on grant of bail. Considering all these aspects
this Court is of the view that the application filed by the applicant
is to be allowed with certain conditions. Hence, the following
order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.964 of 2024 is hereby allowed
and disposed off.

2. The applicant Suresh Meghraj Shroff is hereby released on bail in
connection with C.R. No.83 of 2022 registered with EOW,
Mumbai (C.R. No.527/22 registered with Juhu Police Station)
against the Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections
406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 3, 4, 5, 8 and 13 of The
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of
Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 on
furnishing PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
with one or more sureties in the like amount.

3. The Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of
:6:
Order in BA no. 964/24
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for a period of three
months.
4. The Applicant to make surety compliance before concern Court.
5. The applicant shall surrender his passport before the investigating
officer within a period of one week of his release.

6. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by
the Investigating Officer as and when required, under written
intimation.

7. The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of
concern Court.

8. The Applicant shall not alienate any movable and immovable
property in his name or in the name of his wife/children if any,
without permission of concern Court.

9. The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or
pressurize the prosecution witnesses in any manner till the
conclusion of trial.

10. The Applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential
address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated,
in case there is any change.

11. The Applicant shall attend the dates of trial regularly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
Digitally signed
by ADITEE
UDAY KADAM
Date: 2024.05.06
17:06:57 +0530
Date: 04/05/2024
Mumbai
Dictated directly on computer
Signed by HHJ on
: 04/05/2024
: 04/05/2024
(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
:7:
Order in BA no. 964/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
06.05.2024 at 4.43 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. A. U. Kadam
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
04.05.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
04.05.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
06.05.2024