Dismissed

Rajendra Gulabchand Bhagat v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Apr 2024ABA/481/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Group of anticipatory bail applications concerning a stalled housing project under Sections 406/420/34 IPC and MOFA. Interim protection had continued on assurances of project completion via SWAMIH funding, then a transfer to a new developer. The court found the representations false and undisclosed litigation, vacated interim protection and rejected all applications, permitting custodial interroga

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajendra Gulabchand Bhagat Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 480 OF 2023

¶4

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶5

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.04.25 19:26:08 +0530

¶6

Bharat Madhukar Dixit } .. Applicant

¶7

: Versus :

¶8

The State of Maharashtra } .. Respondent

¶9

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 481 OF 2023

¶10

Rajendra Gulabchand Bhaga } ..Applicant : Versus : The State of Maharashtra } ..Respondent

¶11

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 845 OF 2023

¶12

Girish Gupta H.S. } ..Applicant

¶13

: Versus :

¶14

The State of Maharashtra } ..Respondent

¶15

Page No. 1 of 13
25 April 2024

¶16

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶17

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1940 OF 2021

¶18

Snehal Sushil Mantri } .. Applicant : Versus : The State of Maharashtra } .. Respondent

¶19

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2076 OF 2021 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1940 OF 2021

¶20

Mohamadh Afsal Ansari } ..Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Snehal Sushil Mantri } ..Applicant : Versus : The State of Maharashtra } ..Respondent

¶21

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2163 OF 2021 IN

¶22

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1940 OF 2021

¶23

Utsav Dutta & Anr. } ..Applicants

¶24

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶25

Page No. 2 of 13
25 April 2024

¶26

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx Snehal Sushil Mantri } ..Applicant : Versus : The State of Maharashtra } ..Respondent

¶27

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2347 OF 2023 IN

¶28

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1940 OF 2021

¶29

Rishi Kumar Tiwari & Ors. } ..Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Snehal Sushil Mantri } ..Applicant : Versus : The State of Maharashtra } ..Respondent

¶30

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2162 OF 2021 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1940 OF 2021

¶31

Sanal Kumar Sonasundaran & Ors. } ..Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Snehal Sushil Mantri } ..Applicant : Versus : The State of Maharashtra } ..Respondent

¶32

Page No. 3 of 13
25 April 2024

¶33

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶34

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2077 OF 2021

¶35

Sushil Pandurang Mantri } ..Applicant : Versus : The State of Maharashtra } .. Respondent

¶36

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 2022 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2077 OF 2021

¶37

Utsav Dutta & Anr. } ...Applicants

¶38

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶39

Sushil Pandurang Mantri } ..Applicant : Versus : The State of Maharashtra } .. Respondent

¶40

Mr. Mithilesh Mishra , for the Applicant in all Anticipatory Bail Applications. Mr. Satish Sharma i/by. Mr. Vijay Upadhyay, for the Proposed Intervenor, Kappa Developers LLP.

¶41

Mr. Ketan Josh i i/by. Mr. Siddharth Karpe, Mr. Vishwajeet Mohite, for the Applicants/intervenors in IA-2076/2021 and IA-2347/2023. Mr. Vikas Shivarka r for the Intervenor in IA-1409/2024. Mr. A.S. Gawai , APP for State.

¶42

Page No. 4 of 13
25 April 2024

¶43

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶44

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 25 April 2024.

¶45

P.C. :

¶46

1) These applications are fled seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.42/2021 registered under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act ( MOFA).

¶47

2) When the applications came up before this Court on 4 April 2024, this Court expressed disinclination to allow the applications and passed the following order :

¶48

1By these Applications the Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with
C.R. No.42 of 2021 registered under sections 406, 420 and read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under sections 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the
Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA). When the Anticipatory Bail
Application No.1940 of 2021 fled by Ms. Snehal Sushil Mantri came up before
this Court on 26 August 2021, this Court was informed that M/s. Mantri
Developers Private Limited was in the process of arranging funds through Special
Window for Afordable & Mid-Income Housing (SWAMIH). An assurance was
given to this Court that a progress would be made for completing the construction
by procuring funds through SWAMIH. On that count this Court granted interim
protection in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1940 of 2021 on 26 August 2021.

¶49

2However it appears that the Developer was unable to procure funds in that
scheme and no progress is made for completion of the project. Alternatively a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 25 March 2022 was executed
between the Developer and M/s. Kappa Developers LLP which is a sister concern
of M/s. Goyal Ganga Developments for transfer of the project to M/s. Kappa

¶50

Page No. 5 of 13
25 April 2024

¶51

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶52

Developers LLP. It is the contention of the Applicants that out of total 123 fat
purchasers, 103 fat purchasers have consented for transfer of the project to M/s.
Kappa Developers LLP. Reliance is placed on email of MahaRERA by which the
proposal for change of Promoter as M/s. Kappa Developers LLP was approved by
MahaRERA on 29 April 2022.

¶53

3While the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants was attempting to
assure this Court that the new Promoter M/s. Kappa Developers LLP would now
take over the project and complete the same, my attention is invited to Interim
Application No.1409 of 2024 fled by one of the Intervenors alongwith which, a
copy of Plaint in Special Civil Suit No.733 of 2023 fled by M/s. Kappa
Developers LLP against Shore Dwellings Private Limited and others is brought
on record. The suit appears to have been fled by M/s. Kappa Developers LLP
seeking specifc performance of the Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs)
dated 16 December 2021. It appears an injunction is sought against Shore
Dwellings Private Limited, inter alia from causing any construction at the site.
The suit appears to have been lodged on 12 April 2023. However in the Afdavit
fled by Mr. Sushil Pandurang Mantri on 28 August 2023, solemn statements are
made that the project is now transferred to M/s. Kappa Developers LLP who
would execute the sale. In the Afdavit fled on 28 August 2023 by Mr. Sushil
Pandurang Mantri, there is no reference to fling of Special Civil Suit No.733 of
2023 which was apparently lodged 12 April 2023. The learned counsel appearing
for the Applicants is quick enough to respond that as on the date of fling of
Afdavit dated 28 August 2023 Mr. Sushil Pandurng Mantri was not even aware
of fling of the suit as the appearance in the suit by the Defendants therein was
apparently made in November 2023.

¶54

4Upon being inquired as to why the suit is fled and whether there are
strained relationship between Shore Dwellings Private Limited and M/s.
Kappa Developers LLP, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants has no
instructions. He also seeks time to check the current position about the progress
made by M/s. Kappa Developers LLP for completion of the project. In fact one of
the Intervenors has invited my attention to the latest photographs at the site which

¶55

Page No. 6 of 13
25 April 2024

¶56

24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶57

Neeta Sawant

¶58

indicate that M/s. Kappa Developers LLP has apparently not taken any steps for
progressing the construction at site. In my view prima facie, the Afdavit fled by
Mr. Sushil Pandurang Mantri on 28 August 2023 about M/s. Kappa Developers
LLP taking over the project and completing the same does not inspire confdence
and apparently fling of the suit by M/s. Kappa Developers LLP against Shore
Dwellings Private Limited prima facie indicates strained relationship between the
parties. Since complete and correct factual position is not put before this Court and
since the Applications are kept pending for considerable period of time after grant
of interim protection, this Court was inclined to reject the Applications. However
by way of last chance, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants seeks time
to apprise the Court about the latest position in the case. By way of last chance,
hearing of the Applications is deferred till 18 April 2024, to be listed high on
board. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted to the Applicants.
Interim protection granted earlier to continue till the next date of hearing.

¶59

3) When the applications were listed on 18 April 2024, it was informed to the Court that M/s. Kappa Developers LLP ( Kappa Developers ) is taking over the Project and that the Applicants were ensuring the suit fled by Kappa Developers would be withdrawn. On this count, time was sought on 18 April 2024 for fling AAdavit.

¶60

4) Today, AAdavit/undertaking of Mr. Sushil Pandurang Mantri executed on 24 April 2024 is tendered. Paras-8 to 12 of the AAdavit-cumUndertaking read thus :

¶61

8. That, pending the Anticipatory bail application, M/s. Shore Dwellings Pvt.
Ltd., has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Kappa
Developers LLP (a sister concern of M/s. Goel Ganga Developments) which is
a Limited Liability Partnership frm incorporated on 10th September 2018, in
order to complete the residential project named "Mantri Vantage". That, M / s

¶62

Page No. 7 of 13
25 April 2024

¶63

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶64

Shore Dwellings Pvt. Ltd., in consonance with the at purchasers decided to
hand over the entire project to M/s. Goel Ganga Developments.

¶65

9. Further, consent of 103 (83.73%) fat purchasers have been obtained for
transfer of project to Kappa Developers LLP. Further, M/s. Shore Dwellings
has applied to the MahaRERA for change of Promoter along with consent
letters of log fat purchasers and the same has been approved by MahaRERA
vide approval dt. 29.04.2022.

¶66

10. Considering delays happening from Kappa Developers in moving forward
for one or other reasons, we are coming forward with an alternative proposal as
under.

¶67

11. I undertake before this Hon'ble Court that the project shall be concluded for
the present fat purchasers within a period of four years from the revised plan
approvals.

¶68

12. Further, I understand and acknowledge the fact that there has been delay
on our part to conclude the project and handover possession of the fats to the
fat purchasers and in view thereof, I undertake to repay, the fat purchasers
who wish to walk out of the project, the amount paid by them along with 6%
interest per annum, within a period of six months from the execution and
acceptance of this undertaking before this Hon'ble Court. That whatever
stated in foregoing paragraphs is true and correct to best of my knowledge.

¶69

5) Thus, from the contents of the AAdavit of Undertaking, it appears that Shore Dwellings Private Limited ( Shore Dwellings ) does not desire that the project should be executed by Kappa Developers and that Shore Dwellings is now desirous of completing the project on its own.

¶70

6) Perusal of various orders passed in the present applications by this court would indicate that interim protection was granted in favour of the Applicants initially on a representation that funds were being procured from

¶71

Page No. 8 of 13
25 April 2024

¶72

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶73

Special Window for Afordable & Mid-Income Housing ( SWAMIH). However, subsequently it transpired that the funds could not be procured through SWAMIH and this Court was shown Memorandum of Understanding dated 25 March 2022 executed between Shore Dwellings and Kappa Developers . Thereafter, attempts were made to continue the interim protection by the Applicants by representing before this Court that now Kappa Developers would complete the Project. My attention was also invited during the course of previous hearings that, out of total 123 fat purchasers, 103 fat purchasers have consented for transfer of the Project to Kappa Developers and reliance was placed on email of MahaRERA by which MahaRERA has accepted the proposal for change of Promoter as Kappa Developers in respect of the Project concerned. While these representations were being made about Kapa Developers taking over the project, doubts about transaction between Shore Dwellings and Kappa Developers surfaced only when intervenors pointed out to this Court that some litigation was initiated by Kappa Developers against Shore Dwellings . Therefore, time was sought by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants to check the position about pendency of the suit between Kappa Developers and Shore Dwellings . It was then assured to this Court that eforts would be made so that suit fled by Kappa Developers was withdrawn and that Kappa Developers carries forward the development. On these counts, adjournment was sought and interim protection was extended. Today, it has transpired that Shore Dwellings is not desirous of getting the Project executed through Kappa Developers. All the representations made to this Court during previous hearings have thus turned out to be false. As observed above, Applicants had initially not disclosed the

¶74

Page No. 9 of 13
25 April 2024

¶75

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶76

factum of fling suit by Kappa Developers and the said fact was brought on record by the Intervenors.

¶77

7) Though a vague promise is sought to be given in para-11 of the AAdavit of Undertaking that Shore Dwellings will complete the project within a period of four years from the date of revised plan approvals, it is highly doubtful whether the Applicants would be in a position to fulfll the said Undertaking. It has now been almost three long years since Applicants initially are represented before this Court that the Project would be completed through various agencies. Every time diferent agency/entity is projected for representing before this Court that the Project would be completed. However, today a solemn statement is made before this Court that Shore Dwellings would complete the project on its own. In my view, this Court is being taken for a ride by the Applicants by giving false assurances about completion of the Project through diferent agencies/entities. On 4 April 2024 itself, this Court had made it clear that interim protection granted in favour of the Appliances is required to be revoked considering their conduct. In view of the AAdavit of Undertaking tendered today, I have no doubt in my mind that interim protection granted in favour of the Applicants deserves to be vacated. While this Court is not expected to ensure that the Project is completed and the duped house buyers receive their fats in these Anticipatory Bail Applications, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that the only reason which weighed with this Court while granting interim protection to Applicants on 26 August 2021 was the assurance given to this

¶78

Page No. 10 of 13
25 April 2024

¶79

Neeta Sawant

¶80

24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶81

Court that funds were being procured through SWAMIH. In this regard, the order passed by this Court on 26 August 2021 is as under :

¶82

1. Learned counsel Mr.Mundargi appearing for the applicant, at the
outset, make a statement that without going into the contested issue as to
whether the present applicant is involved in the scheme, which is foated
by ‘Shore Dwellings Pvt. Ltd.’ a sister concern of ‘M/s Mantri
Developers Pvt.Ltd.’ in which, she was once upon a time, appointed as
head of Human Resources Development, but now resigned, has placed
on record a proposal received in the name of Mr.Sushil Mantri of ‘M/s
Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd.’ from the Special Window for Afordable &
Mid-Income Housing (SWAMIH) Investment Funds foated by the
Central Government with a objective to complete the construction of
stalled, RERA-registered afordable and mid-income category housing
projects which are stuck due to paucity of funds.

¶83

Mr. Mundargi fairly admits that the amounts were accepted by
the ‘Shore Dwellings Pvt. Ltd.’ for a housing project whereby 400 fats
were to be constructed in Khardi Pune in a project captioned as “Mantri
Vantage”. For certain unavoidable circumstances, the project got stalled,
but the letter received by ‘M/s Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd.’ from
SWAMIH Investment Funds give a ray of hope and the applicant is
harping on the same for completion of the project. The proposal which is
received on 01/06/2021 is accompanied with several terms and
conditions and it is informed by Mr.Mundargi that viability of a
particular project being taken over by SWAMIH Investment Funds is
being considered. When inquired as to what is the progress of the said
proposal from 01/06/2021, Mr.Mundargi states that appropriate steps
are being taken, but he is unable to divulge the same at this stage.
However, he is ready and willing to share the contact number of a person
belonging to the SWAMIH Investment Funds, who is monitoring and
supervising the viability and the learned APP can then ascertain about
the statement made by Mr.Mundargi.

¶84

Page No. 11 of 13
25 April 2024

¶85

24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶86

Neeta Sawant

¶87

2. It is equally true that the intervenors, who are before this Court are
waiting for their ‘Home’ to be fnished since 2014 and they cannot be
asked to wait indefnitely. It is also informed that some of the fat
purchasers have approached the MAHARERA authority, Pune and
even orders have been passed in their favour for exercise of their option
and seeking the amount back with the prescribed interest. The said orders
are staring in their face since 2014, but nothing has changed. In any
case, merely arresting the applicant at this stage, if some via media is
being worked out, is not the only solution. Nonetheless, prima facie, it
can be seen that the allegations under Sections 406 and 420 read with
Section 34 of IPC alongwith relevant provisions of MOFA Act are made
out, but this itself is no ground for arresting the applicant if the applicant
is able to take forward their project in which the investors are promised
dwelling houses and if such positive step can satisfy the investors, arrest
can be postponed for the time being.

¶88

Learned APP to seek necessary instructions.

¶89

3. Re-notify for 06/09/2021.

¶90

8) Now that all representations made to this Court about completion of Project have turned out to be false, I am of the view that the police can be permitted to investigate the role of the Applicants in the alleged crime.

¶91

9) The learned APP would submit that Applicants have collected huge amounts from fat purchasers and the trail of the funds is required to be investigated. That the Applicants have not co-operated with the police for investigations into the crime.

¶92

Page No. 12 of 13
25 April 2024

¶93

Neeta Sawant 24-ABA-480-2023&group.docx

¶94

10) Considering the above position, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the Applicants would be necessary so as to enable the Investigating OAcer to complete the investigations. In that view of the matter, all the Anticipatory Bail Applications are rejected. All the Interim Application stands disposed of.

¶95

11) After the Order is pronounced, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants seeks extension of interim protection by a period of one week. The request is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenors. Considering the fact that the interim protection is operating in favour of the Applicants for a period of over 2 years, the same is extended by a period of one week from today.

¶96

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶97

Page No. 13 of 13
25 April 2024

Rajendra Gulabchand Bhagat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajendra Gulabchand Bhagat v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra C Shah Vs the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and 4 Ors.

Brighton Facility India Maintenance Services LLP vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Tanaji Malusare City Association through K.N. Chandramouli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Kolhapur Thr. Executive Director Kolhapur Vs Shri. Dilip Shankarrao Patil

Bombay Assemblies of God Day School vs Aisha Shivaji Udeshi

Ramdas @ Tatya Narayan Kolhe vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.