Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act in Mumbai has rejected the regular bail application of Pramod Devram Bhanji (50), an accused in an alleged ₹2.4 crore housing fraud scheme. The court, presided over by Judge N.P. Mehta (Court Room no. 7), found prima facie evidence of Bhanji’s active involvement in defrauding sixty women from a women’s self-help group.

The order was passed on December 4, 2024, in Bail Application No. 898 of 2024, linked to C.R. No. 882 of 2024 registered with Malwani Police Station. Bhanji is charged under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as Section 3 of The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).

Prosecution’s Case: A Deceptive Housing Scheme

The prosecution, represented by Ld. SPP Suryawanshi, alleged that in 2009, a women’s group called Mata Ramabai Mahila Mandal was formed in the informant’s area. In 2015, with the goal of helping its 60 members acquire their own homes, they contacted accused no.1.

• The Scheme: On August 15, 2015, accused no.1 allegedly presented a scheme at Madh, promising to provide one house to each woman for ₹4,00,000/-. Impressed by this, all sixty women agreed, totaling a sum of ₹2,40,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Forty Lakhs only).
• Memorandum of Understanding (MoU): A meeting was held on August 20, 2016, at the informant’s mother’s house (Sindhubai Walve), where an MoU was signed between accused no.1 and the complainant/others. The MoU stipulated that accused no.1 would construct 60 rooms (each 9.5 feet wide and 13 feet long) for the total amount.
• Payments and Fraudulent Documents: Between July 12, 2015, and August 2018, the women allegedly paid ₹2,10,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Ten Lakhs only) to accused no.1 through cash, cheque, and bank transfers, after which accused no.1 provided delivery receipts. To defraud the investors, agreements of sale, affidavits, irrevocable Power of Attorney, and General Power of Attorney were prepared in favor of accused no.1 and his brother-in-law, accused no.2 (Pramod Devram Bhanji, the applicant).
• Failure to Deliver: Despite receiving substantial payments, the construction work on the promised rooms never commenced. The prosecution alleged that the accused intended to defraud the investors, pocketing their hard-earned money.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail

Ld. Advocate T.R. Patel, along with Ld. Advocate Nikesh Yadav, representing Pramod Devram Bhanji, argued that there was no direct transaction between the applicant and the complainant or the alleged witnesses. They contended that no money was transferred to Bhanji, and all financial decisions and payments were directed to the other co-accused.

The defense claimed that the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet, along with supporting documents and statements, revealed that the MoU was “manipulated and false created.” They asserted that there was nothing to show the applicant knew the complainant or witnesses, and that the entire transaction was between the applicant’s brother and the alleged victims. They specifically denied that the applicant received any pecuniary gain from the alleged ₹2,40,00,000/-. Ld. Advocate Neha Patil also appeared for the intervenor, Mrs. Sadhana Shivaji Bhandare.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

Judge N.P. Mehta, upon reviewing the charge-sheet, found a strong prima facie case against the applicant. The court observed that Pramod Devram Bhanji, along with his brother, accepted money from numerous women from the “lower strata of society” under the pretext of providing them with rooms.

The judge highlighted key elements indicating Bhanji’s direct involvement:

• He executed agreements for sale and powers of attorney concerning the vacant land on behalf of these women.
• He also executed an affidavit affirming that he was the “absolute owner of certain land” and pledged to execute a conveyance deed in favor of the women.
• The court explicitly stated, “After executing document in favour of several women, who paid money to Avinash, both applicant and his brother assured them to provide with rooms. However, no construction work ever commenced on the site till date.“
• The judge concluded, “There is no intention on the part of applicant and his brother to return the money to poor women. Prima facie applicant along with his brother Avinash defrauded women of their hard earn money. Applicant was engaged with his brother Avinash throughout in collecting money and executing documents in favour of sixty odd women. It can not be said that applicant is not in receipt of any benefit of the scheme floated by them to defraud poor women.”

The court also noted that the applicant and his brother “are having sufficient funds with them to return the deposits to sixty odd women but have avoided to do so for no reason.” Therefore, the court found that the applicant’s “involvement in crime under Section 3 of MPID Act is prima facie made out” and that he “is liable to refund deposit, which is public money.” Given that Bhanji had “not shown any readiness and willingness to return the deposit,” the court was “not inclined to grant regular bail to applicant/accused.”

Order

The Bail Application No. 898 of 2024 filed by Pramod Devram Bhanji stands rejected.