appln-2903-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2903 of 2010 (ANTICIPATORY BAIL) Titus A. D’mello .. .. Applicant. vs. The State of Maharashtra .. .. Respondent. Mr P. M. Havnur i/by Kunal Cheema and Datta Mane, for the Applicant. Mr P. S. Hingorani, A.P.P.,for the State. Mr B. K. Mishra for Respondent No.2. Applicant in person present. --------- CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 20TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant, apprehending his arrest in the matter of M.E.C.R.No.9/2008 registered with Samata Nagar Police Station, Kandivali, Mumbai. appln-2903-10 2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (original complainant) filed criminal complaint against the applicant for taking action against him for various offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 471 120-B of I.P.C. Orders under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. were passed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate directing investigation. Accordingly, the matter was seized by Samata Nagar Police and is still under investigation. 3. The allegations, in short, are that certain immovable property belonging to the applicant situated at village Kanjur, taluka Kurla, District Mumbai, Bombay Subarban District was agreed to be sold/developed and a sort of Power of Attorney in February, 2005 and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in July, 2005 came to be executed with original complainant - present respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By execution of such documents development rights were given to the complainant. Apparently, when a public notice was issued by the complainant through lawyer, concerning the same property, various objections were received and it was revealed through such objections that in the year 1996 there was earlier transaction with one Mr Shyam Dhondiram Chaudhari. Even prior to that in the year 1987 there was such transaction of development or otherwise of the same property with one Dattakripa Co-operative Housing Society. So also, it was revealed that in the year 2007 there was similar such transaction of development or otherwise with one Paresh Construction. Ultimately, as the position stands at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. it was revealed that sometime in November, 2007, appln-2903-10 apparently, a conveyance deed for the same property was effected and property is alleged to have been sold to one M/s Reatox Guru Developers Pvt Ltd, a construction company. This is the cause for filing the criminal complaint. 4. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the complainant herein has not complied with the terms and conditions agreed between. However, when asked by the Court, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that any understanding or transaction entered with the complainant was not put to an end by any letter or notice. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that he had not filed any civil suit for redressing his grievance, however, has chosen to file a criminal complaint. 5. Counter to the above arguments, learned Advocate for the complainant – respondents submitted that certain amounts have been given by cheques and also by cash to the applicant, so also by giving the possession of one “Innova” vehicle. This Court has gone through the report produced by Samata Nagar Police Station, dated 6.6.2010, which was filed before the learned Sessions Court during the arguments on the anticipatory bail preferred by the present applicant and apparently an amount of Rs.42 lakh and odd is alleged to have been given by the complainant to the applicant. So also, in the said police report there is mention regarding the earlier and latter transaction entered into by the present applicant which are detailed hereinabove since 1987-1996 and 2007. appln-2903-10 6. Considering the rival submissions and considering that even one civil suit is also pending against the present applicant filed by one Paresh Construction, apparently, the merits of the criminal complaint so far as the allegations of defrauding, imputed against the applicant, cannot be doubted. Considering nature of the matter, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail to the present applicant. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Bail Application No. 2903 / 2010 is hereby rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. 7. Application is disposed of in above terms. (A.R.JOSHI,J) LRS-PA