1 sns IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.724 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.484 OF 2011 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.724 OF 2011 Mr. Jitesh Kantilal Shah ...Applicant. v/s State ...Respondent. And Rajesh Chunilal Meghani ...Intervener. Mr. Shirish Gupte a/w Subodh Gupte i/by M/s Crawford Bayley & Co. ,advs. For the Applicant. Ms S.V.Sonawane, APP For the Respondent/State. Mr. Anil Singh i/by Hiten S. Venegavkar, advs. For the Intervener. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 5,2011. P.C. 1 Intervention Application No.484 of 2011 not on board. Taken on board. 2 In the interest of justice, the original complainant Rajesh Meghani is allowed to intervene and criminal application no.484 of 2011 stands disposed off accordingly. 3 Applicant Jitesh Shah seeks anticipatory bail in crime no.279/2011 registered with D.N.Nagar police station, Andheri for the offences punishable 2 under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. on the report lodged by intervener/complainant. 4 According to the complainant, one Anish Arnalkar had assured him allotment of certain premises at Andheri under the ULC Schemes and having assured that, he had received an amount of Rs.1 crore 30 lacs by cheques. He had also produced certain receipts and the orders about the allotment of said premises but later on, it was revealed that all those documents were fake and forged. Therefore, he lodged report against Anish Arnalkar. Later on, police found that having received money from the complainant Rajesh Meghani, said Anish had transferred the amount to the present applicant and , therefore, the present applicant is also involved in the commission of crime against the complainant Rajesh. 5 It is the contention of the applicant that the said Anish Arnalkar had entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with him on 22nd June, 2006 whereby the said Anish Arnalkar had promised allotment of commercial plot of land at Bandra 3 admeasuring 3500 yards at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per square yard. As per the agreement, applicant was to pay Rs.95 lacs as advance to process the title of the said plot at Bandra and the balance amount of Rs.3 crore 60 lacs was to be paid on obtaining title certificate. As per the said agreement, applicant had actually paid an amount of Rs.95 lacs to said Anish by three cheques of Rs.30 lacs, 40 lacs and 25 lacs. These cheques were encashed. The amounts were debited in the account of the applicant and the same were transferred to the account of the said Anish Arnalkar. However, said Anish Arnalkar failed to identify the property and, therefore, transaction could not be materialised. From June, 2010 to May, 2011, the said Arnalkar made payment of Rs.70 lacs to the applicant by six transfers from Citizen Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. According to the applicant, he has not received back his full amount from Anish Arnalkar even now. He had no concern with the transaction between Anish Arnalkar and the complainant. 6 After perusal of the documents, bank 4 accounts and the other material, I find that the applicant himself appears to be one of the victims of Anish Arnalkar, just like the complainant. There is nothing to show that the present applicant was involved in cheating the complainant or to show that he had conspired with Anish Arnalkar to cheat the complainant. The prosecution as well as the complainant harped upon the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in which the description of the property is not given. It is true that the property has not been identified in the MOU, which the applicant was to purchase. At the same time, it is to be noted that said Anish Arnalkar cheated the complainant also stating that there was certain property in certain buildings, which could be got allotted from the Government of Maharashtra under the ULC Act Scheme and on that assurance, complainant paid huge amount of Rs.1 crore 30 lacs. It is no wonder that in similar fashion, applicant was also cheated. Documents reveal that said Anish Arnalkar claims to be member of Urban Development, Advisory Board Govt. of India and Advisor of the 5 Supreme Court and the High Court which appears to be per-se false. In spite of this, applicant as well as the complainant believed him and were cheated. 7 In view of the facts stated above, in the event of arrest in crime no.279/2011 registered with D.N.Nagar police station, Andheri for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C., the applicant shall be released on his executing PR of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount with the condition that he shall make himself available before the police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation/investigation and shall produce all the documents required by the police. He shall not misuse the bail. 8 Application stands disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)