is portraying as his was never his property. That, the Applicant knew that the title of the said property is under dispute and the same is pending before the CJSD Pnavel Court for adjudication since 2013. That, the Applicant very well knew that, he was in no position to sell the said property to third persons as his own title to the said property was under dispute and this fact was never revealed by the Applicant to the Respondent No. 2/Original Complainant. The Applicant instead induced the Respondent No. 2/Original Complainant into believing that, the property belongs to the Applicant and the Applicant has authority to sell the same to other parties. That, the Applicant claims in his Anticipatory Bail Application that, he executed a purported Agreement/Memorandum of understanding with Mr. Sunit Bhanushali on 28th April 2004 and accordingly the Applicant paid an initial amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Mr. Sunil Bhanushali on 28th April, 2004. It is pertinent to note that, the purported agreement that, theApplicant is relying upon was never executed on 28th April 2004. That a perusal of the documents annexed by the Applicant in his Anticipatory Bail Application will reveal that the purported document is dated 28th September 2004 and not 28th April 2004. Therefore, the claim of the Applicant that, he entered into a agreement with Mr. Sunil Bhanushali on 28th April 2004 is false, frivolous and bogus. That the genuineness of the said document itself comes under question as there are serious discrepancies in the alleged MOU dated 28th April 2004 and the same needs to be investigated whether the said
