Mumbai, Maharashtra – February 24, 2015 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act) at the Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court, presided over by Special Judge D.P. Surana, today rejected the bail application of Amir Manzur Khan, identified by the prosecution as a “mastermind and main accused” in a pre-planned scheme to defraud citizens seeking MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority) flats.
Khan, 28, was arrested on December 24, 2014, in connection with C.R. No. 329/2014 registered at Malwani Police Station. He faces severe charges under sections 420 (cheating), 465, 466, 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 170 (impersonating a public servant) read with 34 (common intention) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act.
The Alleged Scam: False Promises of MHADA Flats
According to the prosecution, co-accused Rakesh Seth and Abdul Khan sought out individuals in need of flats in Mumbai, inducing them with promises of MHADA flats at concessional rates. These victims were then directed to “Amir Imran Academy” in Malwani, Malad West, where the present applicant, Amir Khan, along with Imran Khan and Sarfaraj Khan, allegedly made further false representations about their “good relations with MHADA officers.”
The victims were reportedly shown forged and false MHADA documents to induce them to deposit money. More funds were allegedly extracted on the pretext of “extra FSI.” In a particularly deceptive move, victims were even taken in front of the MHADA office, where a person named Pramod Kedar Singhania falsely impersonated a MHADA officer, extracting an additional Rs. 87,000/- in cash from victims with further false promises.
The prosecution explicitly stated that Amir Khan is a “mastermind and main accused” who directly received substantial amounts from victims and transferred funds to co-accused accounts, demonstrating his central role in the conspiracy.
Defence Claims Victim Status, Prosecution Cites Ongoing Investigation
Advocate Nishant, representing Amir Khan, argued that his client had been sufficiently interrogated and that the charge sheet had been filed, implying that further custody was unnecessary. He controversially claimed that Amir Khan himself was a victim, having paid Rs. 8.92 lakhs in cash to obtain a MHADA flat, and was even shown as a victim in the FIR. He asserted that any funds deposited into his client’s account were merely on the instructions of co-accused Imran Khan and were subsequently refunded to other individuals, with no amount utilized by the applicant.
However, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Adv. Kanojia, along with the Investigating Officer (I.O.), vehemently opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the crime and Amir Khan’s prima facie involvement as a main conspirator. They highlighted that out of 11 accused, four are still wanted, and while 69 investors were identified at the time of the charge sheet, this number has since increased to 74, with a total defrauded amount of Rs. 7,61,39,650/- (Rupees Seven Crore Sixty-One Lakhs Thirty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty only).
The prosecution emphasized that Amir Khan directly received huge amounts in cash and cheque from investors, and that the investigation is still in progress, particularly regarding the wanted accused and potential other victims. They contended that Khan’s release could “definitely hamper the further investigation” and lead to tampering with evidence and witnesses.
Court Finds Strong Prima Facie Case, Rejects Bail
Judge D.P. Surana meticulously reviewed the application, the prosecution’s reply, charge sheet papers, and tabular charts submitted by the I.O. The court acknowledged that while the charge sheet was filed, four accused were still at large, and the I.O. had explicitly kept open the possibility of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.
Crucially, the court’s perusal of the charge sheet and I.O.’s charts revealed that 12 investors explicitly alleged payment of Rs. 24 lakhs to Amir Khan. Witnesses had “categorically stated that it was the present applicant who gave them false assurance and accepted amount towards allotment of MHADA flats.”
The Judge distinguished this case from other financial frauds, stating, “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.” He underscored that in a city like Mumbai, owning a home is a “last dream” for middle-class people, and the accused’s actions constituted a “pre-planned design to dupe such victims in need of shelter by giving them false assurances of MHADA flats, knowingly that such assurance is false and cannot be fulfilled.”
Regarding the defence’s claim of Amir Khan being a victim, the court stated that while he was initially shown as an investor in the FIR, “from chargesheet papers he apparently seems to be one of the main accused in perpetrating the crime.” The court further dismissed the argument about witness reliability, stating it could only be assessed during trial.
The court also noted the serious nature of the offenses, with charges prescribing punishment “upto life imprisonment,” and highlighted the strong possibility of witness tampering and fabrication of false documents.
Given the “strong prima facie case” against Amir Khan, the “ailment of defection since beginning,” and the potential for tampering with witnesses, the court concluded that he was not entitled to the liberty claimed.
ORDER:
“Bail Application No. 2 of 2015 stands rejected.”