Disposed

Faheed Mahmood Kadri and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Sept 2024ABA/964/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; ad-interim relief; interim bail conditions; Bombay High Court; Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; Anticipatory Bail Application No. 964 of 2024; SARANG V. KOTWAL J.; 10 April 2024; Faheed Mahmood Kadri; Mahmood Hasan Kadri; Bilkis Mahmood Hasan Kadri; The State of Maharashtra; C.R. No. 1682 of 2023 Bandra Police Station; Sections 406 420 120-B Indian Penal Code; cheating; criminal

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim anticipatory bail (not a final decision): release on arrest on P.R. bonds of Rs.30,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount, order operative till 06/05/2024; applicants to att

Faheed Mahmood Kadri and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

11-aba-964-24

1 of 5

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 964 OF 2024

¶6

(1) Faheed Mahmood Kadri,

¶7

(2) Mahmood Hasan Kadri, (3) Mrs. Bilkis Mahmood Hasan Kadri ..Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶10

Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w. Aditya Talpade a/w. Pratik Karande for Applicants.

¶11

Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State/Respondent. Mr. Kamran Shaikh a/w. Mohsin Shaikh for Intervenor.

¶12

CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :- 10 APRIL 2024

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in

¶15

connection with C.R.No.1682 of 2023 registered at Bandra Police Station, Mumbai, on 25.10.2023, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Heard Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned counsel for

¶17

the applicants and Ms. Rajeshree Newton, learned APP for the

¶18

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2024.04.12 12:09:03 +0530

¶19

2 of 5 11-aba-964-24

¶20

State. Mr. Kamran Shaikh, learned counsel appears and states that he has instructions to oppose this application by filing intervention application. He seeks reasonable time to enable him to file an intervention application. I am inclined to grant him time. Therefore, today I have heard the parties for consideration of adinterim relief.

¶21

The F.I.R. is lodged by one Yasmin Saudagar. She has stated that, she was a polio patient. She used to invest the money as per the advice given by her brother Ashfaq and he used to give returns to the informant on her investment. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that, in the year 2016, she decided to purchase a flat to be constructed by the applicants in their building; for the sale price of Rs.1,30,00,000/-. The informant paid Rs.1 crore to the applicant Faheed on 29.08.2016; out of which, Rs.50 lakhs were paid in cash and Rs.50 lakhs were paid through a cheque drawn on ICICI bank, bearing Cheque No.044024 dated 29.08.2016. The rest of the amount of Rs.30 lakhs was paid in cash. The accused did not execute an agreement for sale, but instead the applicant No.1 Faheed and the Applicant No.3 Bilkis issued the allotment letter for

¶22

3 of 5 11-aba-964-24

¶23

that particular flat No.601 on the 6^th floor of that building. After that, the accused did not take any steps to construct the upper floors where the flat was to be constructed.

¶24

On 06.10.2020, the applicant No.1 Faheed executed an

¶25

MoU, wherein, he had admitted having received Rs.1,30,00,000/for that particular flat. It was also mentioned that, if the possession was not given before 01.09.2021, the applicant No.1 and 3 were liable to pay Rs.2,60,00,000/- in lieu of the flat. It is her case that, neither the amount was paid nor the possession was given. On this basis the F.I.R. was lodged.

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the amount given to the applicant No.1 was for the investment purpose and not for purchase of a flat. He referred to an MoU dated 29.08.2016 executed between the applicant No.1 and the informant’s brother Ashfaq, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that the amount of Rs.1 crore mentioned in that MoU was for an investment and was not for purchase of flat. He further submitted that the applicants have repaid Rs.2,05,00,000/- to the informant’s

¶27

4 of 5 11-aba-964-24

¶28

brother between the period from 19.01.2017 to 05.05.2019. Therefore, no offence is made out against the applicants.

¶29

Learned counsel for the first informant submitted that, there was business relation between Ashfaq and the applicant No.1 Faheed since 2011-2012. The amount which was received by the informant’s brother Ashfaq was in relation to those business transactions and that refund was not in connection with the amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/-; which was given for purchase of that flat.

¶30

Considering both these submissions, the investigating officer will have to test this claim and the counter claim by making enquiries with the informant’s brother, as well as, the applicants. Therefore, for the time being, the applicants can be protected by way of ad-interim relief with directions to attend the concerned police station.

¶31

Hence, the following order.

11-aba-964-24

5 of 5

O R D E R

i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.1682 of 2023 registered at Bandra Police Station, Mumbai, till the next date, the Applicant are directed to be released on bail on their executing P. R. bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000/each (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.

¶36

ii) This order shall operate till 06/05/2024.

¶37

iii) The Applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station from 23/04/2024 to 25/04/2024 between 1.00p.m. to 5.00p.m. and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶38

iv) Stand over to 06/05/2024.

¶39

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Faheed Mahmood Kadri and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faheed Mahmood Kadri and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Varsha Kishore Rajput and Anr. vs George Mascarenhas and Anr.

The Ichalkaranji Ind. Co-Op. Estate Ltd. through Manager and Authorized vs Dastagir Abul Bhaldar (Deceased) through Legal Heir

Jitendra Sukhlal Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra

Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage vs Abhijeet Narayan Kandage

Bhagwan Balawant Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Snehalkumar Ashwinbhai Savani vs State of Maharashtra