The High Court at Bombay rejected an anticipatory bail application seeking release from arrest in offences related to unauthorized construction, holding that the facts do not disclose a prima facie case for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 of 3 8.ABA.474.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.474 OF 2021
Prashant Anant Patil
Applicant
versus
The State of MaharashtraRespondent
Adv.Rupali Gothwal Rajput i/by S.G.Rajput for applicant.
Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for State.
CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 8th March 2021
PC :
1.This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.895 of
2020 registered with Virar Police Station for offences under Sections
52, 53, 54 of MRTP Act. Subsequently Section 14 of MOFA Act,
Sections 3 and 4 of MPID Act were invoked. Section 420 of IPC is
also invoked.
Digitally signed by Manish Manish S. Thatte S. Thatte Date: 2021.03.1012:21:44 +0530
2.The FIR was registered on 14th October 2020 by employee of
Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation. It was alleged that the building
was constructed unauthorizedly on the plot of land bearing Survey
No.226, Hissa no.3, at Virar. The said building was constructed by
Hitesh Satikumar.. No permission was obtained. Notice was given to
him to stop unauthorized construction. In spite of that the
construction was continued. The flats were sold to purchasers and
on obtaining huge amount towards rentals, some of the flats were let
out to various persons. It is further alleged that development
agreement was executed between developer Hitesh Satikumar and
2 of 3 8.ABA.474.2021.doc
Ajay Toraskar. The applicant is listed as tenant (Kul) in respect to the
said plot of land where the building is constructed. He is not the
owner of plot. The names of owners are also reflected on 7/12
extract. The applicant executed power of attorney with Ajay
Toraskar.
3.The applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail
before Sessions Court which has been rejected vide order dated 25th
January 2021.
4.Learned advocate for applicant submitted that applicant has
not been named in the FIR. He is not involved in carrying out
unauthorized construction. In the 7/12 extract applicant’s name is
mentioned as Kul. The applicant is not beneficiary of the amount.
There is no evidence to show that applicant has accepted any amount
from the purchasers of the flat premises. The construction was
carried out by Hitesh Satikumar.
5.Learned APP submitted that the developer had constructed
building without obtaining any permission. The applicant has
executed power of attorney with Ajay Toraskar. By utilizing said
power of attorney, Ajay Toraskar had executed development
agreement with Hitesh Satikumar and subsequently the building was
constructed, flats were sold to several persons. The case requires
thorough investigation. Ajay Toraskar and Hitesh Satikumar are
absconding. The applicant cannot plead ignorance by stating that he
is not a party to the transaction. Permission of owners of the
property was not obtained before executing development agreement
with accused no.1.
3 of 3 8.ABA.474.2021.doc
6.On perusal of FIR it is apparent that the applicant was tenant/
Kul in respect to the subject plot of land. The building was
constructed by developer and flats were also sold to various persons
and let out to various persons by accepting huge amount. No
permission was obtained for construction. It is pertinent to note that
MOU was executed by applicant being tenant in respect to the
property without consent of the owners. The development agreement
was executed with developer by Ajay Toraskar and building was
constructed. In this scenario it is difficult to accept that applicant has
not participated in the transaction. The development agreement was
executed on the basis of MOU between Ajay Toraskar and applicant.
The co-accused are absconding. The applicant cannot feign ignorance
about construction. Hence, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is
made out. Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected.
7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST
Prashant Anant Patil
The State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court