1 ABA 494.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 494 OF 2011 Feroza Abdul Rehman Shaikh. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. Ganesh Gole for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for the State. Mr. M.G. Patil, A.P.I. , Goregaon (East), Police Station. CORAM : A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 21st JUNE 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. Mr. Patil, A.P.I. is present. He has produced the papers of investigation. I have glanced through the said papers. 3. The Applicant is sought to be arrested in C.R. No.335 of 2009, registered at Goregaon (East) Police Station. The said C.R. is in respect of an offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and has been lodged by one Darshan Thakker. The person named as an accused therein, is one Jagat Parekh. The substance of the allegation against the said Jagat Parekh is that the First Informant - Darshan Parekh - wanted to purchase a flat and therefore, approached the said Jagat Parekh, who is a builder. Jagat Parekh showed the Flat No.403 in Alak Jyoti 2 ABA 494.11.sxw Building to the First Informant. The First Informant decided to purchase the said flat, the price of which was stated to be Rs. 19,00,000/- by the said Jagat Parekh. The First Informant paid, totally, an amount of Rs.9,22,480/- to the said Jagat Parekh and an agreement was also entered into between the First Informant and the said Jagat Parekh. However, the said Jagat Parekh did not give the possession of the said flat, which he had promised to give within two months. The said Jagat Parekh avoided giving possession of the flat to the First Informant and offered to return the money, received by him, towards the purchase of the said flat, with interest. He then gave a cheque in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the First Informant but that cheque was dishonored. Jagat Parekh gave another cheque to the First Informant but that was also dishonored. The First Informant learnt that the said flat had been sold by him to some other persons. When the First Informant made inquiries, he realized that Jagat Parekh had taken money from a number of persons by telling them that he would sell flats to them but had actually not given the flats, as agreed. 4. It is in the course of the investigation of the said case that the involvement of the Applicant is said to have been revealed. In the course of investigation, the statement of one Smt. Sudipa Hemant Verma, came to be recorded and it revealed that said Smt. Verma had purchased Flat No.902 from the Applicant. 3 ABA 494.11.sxw 6. I have gone through the statements of Smt. Verma, which has been recorded on 9.4.2010. The substance of the allegation against the Applicant is that she was in collusion with the builder Jagat Parekh. It appears that the amount in respect of the purchase of the said flat was paid by Smt. Verma to the said Jagat Parekh as well as to the present Applicant. An amount of Rs.10,50,000/- is said to have been given to the Applicant, whereas, an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- has been said to have been given by the said Smt. Verma to Jagat Parekh. 7. The statement of Smt. Verma itself shows that the possession of the said flat was agreed to be taken by her from builder - Jagat Parekh - and that Jagat Parekh had said that the possession of the said flat should be taken from him. 8. It is nobody's case that the Applicant was not the owner of the flat and that she had not purchased the same from the builder. The Applicant is not disputing that she entered into an agreement with respect to the said flat. The agreement has been duly registered. 9. It appears that Smt. Verma could not get the flat for which, prima-facie, the said Jagat Parekh is responsible and not the present Applicant. 10. The investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed. I 4 ABA 494.11.sxw am informed that the said Jagat Parekh was arrested and released on bail in due course. 11. Under these circumstances, I think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 12. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. 13. The Interim order passed on 10th June 2011 is confirmed. The Application is disposed of in terms of the said order. (A.M. THIPSAY,J.)