1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2963 OF 2008 Ghanshyam K.Bhavsar .. Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Mr.Rajendra Sorankar for the applicant. Mr.Kiran Jain for the original complainant. Mr.H.J.Dedia A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Mr.Jain, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr.Dedia, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.89 of 2007 of E.O.W., Unit-II, Mumbai Branch, Mumbai. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and his wife for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC and section 4, 15 and 13 of MOFA Act. This is on basis of an FIR lodged by Bhupendrasingh Machre, one of the investors, who invested about Rs.23,50,000/- 2 2 2 with the accused in 1995. It appears, huge monies were paid by the complainant and other investors to the applicant for entering into a lease agreement with MMRDA in respect of a property bearing CTS No.444, 444/1, 444/2 and 444/5 admeasuring about 90,000 sq. ft. The investment was made by the complainant and the other investors with a view to make profit out of these investments. The applicant intended to construct 1,80,000 sq. ft. over this property, out of which he had agreed to allot 90,000 sq. ft. commercial area to the complainant and other investors, and the allotment letters were also issued in their favour. That all happended in 1995. However due to some difficulties, Bhavsar construction company of the accused could not commence the development and, they, with the knowledge of all the investors, entered into a development agreement with Sai Developers in 1997. The complainant paid some amount to Sai Developers in 1997-98 and they also had issued allotment letters of 90,000 sq. ft. commercial area in the project, which they were to complete, in favour of the investors. They also did not commence any work and as a result thereof the development agreement of 1997 was terminated in 1999. Thereafter, another development agreement was entered into between Bhavsar Construction and Royal Developers in 2001. Royal Developers also could not complete the project. 3 3 3 Thereafter, another developer Tanna came into picture, who constructed only residential building over the plot and consumed 30,000 sq. ft. F.S.I. The flats constructed by Tanna Developers were disposed of by them. 3. I have perused the entire material placed before me. It appears that the investors, including the complainant, were aware about all the aforesaid developments. It also appears, in 2002 the applicant came to be arrested in connection with the offence under FERA and under SAFEMA the aforementioned property came to be attached and as a result of which no further development, and more particularly the construction of commercial building, could take place. It is against this backdrop the present complaint has been lodged by the complainant on 18.10.2007 alleging cheating against the applicant and his wife. Counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the applicant was absconding during the period from 1997 to 2003. Even if that is correct, the fact remains that from 2003 till the complaint was lodged in 2007 the applicant did not make any attempt either to abscond or to tamper with the evidence. Having regard to all these facts I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Before I proceed to pass an order it would be appropriate to record the 4 4 4 statement of Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant shall maintain status quo for a period of three months from today insofar as aforementioned plot and more particularly the portion of the said plot which has not been developed so far. His statement is accepted. It is always open to the complainant and other investors to take out appropriate proceedings against the applicant for appropriate relief. In the circumstances I pass the following order: . The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount subject to condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every Saturday between 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. for a period of six months and thereafter on every alternate Saturday betweeen 7.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)