- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 270 OF 2008 Suresh J. Chawda Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the respondent. CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 17, 2008. PC 1. Heard. 2. By this application, applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.I-362 of 2007 registered with Nerul Police Station, Navi Mumbia for the alleged offence punishable under section 420, 465, 468, 471 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that applicant is a builder and promoter by profession. By an agreement of sale dated 13th of October 2006, the applicant agreed to construct and sale to Mr. D. Chakravarti and his wife - 2 - one row house bearing No. 1, situated at Plot No. 27, Sector 26, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai. Though construction of the row house has been completed, However, possession has not been given to the complainant. On the other hand, it appears that one Mr. Shinde is in possession of the row house. The applicant has not explained how Mr. Shinde came in possession. The applicant claims to have purchased and acquired plot No.27 or the rights in the said plot under deed of assignment dated 24th September 2005. Though he contracted to construct and sale the row house, he has not handed over possession of the row house to the complaint who has paid large sum of Rs.12,50,000/- and is further ready to pay the balance consideration. The applicant has not handed over the possession, nor has he refunded the payments received from the complainant with damages. The facts prima-facie disclose complicity of the applicant to the crime of cheating. He has received the consideration and has agreed to sale constructed row-house but has failed to do so and has inducted a stranger in possession of it. Counsel for the applicant submits that Shinde has not been inducted by the applicant but was inducted by the previous owner. That matter needs investigation. 4. The, investigation into the alleged crime is going on and that requires the presence of applicant for - 3 - custodial investigation. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Sd/- [ D. G. KARNIK, J.]