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

7_aba_2378_2021.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2378 OF 2021

¶4

Rajesh Krishnan...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶7

W ITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.434 OF 2024 IN

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2378 OF 2021
Tanaji Malusare City Welfare Association...Applicant/Intervenor

¶9

In the matter between
Rajesh Krishnan...Respondent

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶12

...

¶13

Mr. Gaurav Parkarfor the Applicant in ABA/2378/2021
Mr. A.S. Gawai, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Dhruva Gandhi with Mr. Ashish Mehta, Mr. Himanshu Singh
i/b. M/s. Ethos Legal Alliance for the Applicant in IA/434/2024

¶14

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶15

DATED : 24 APRIL 2024.

¶16

PC:

¶17

Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2024.04.29 10:31:18 +0530

¶18

1.This is an application filed by the Applicant under the
provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-
arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.219 of 2021 registered with
Karjat Police Station, District-Raigad, for the offences punishable under

¶19

Megha 1/6

¶20

7_aba_2378_2021.docx

¶21

Sections 420, 406, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and
Sections 3, 8, 11 and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats
(Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale, management and
transfer) Act, 1963.

¶22

2.I have heard Mr. Parkar, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant, Mr. Gavai, learned APP for the Respondent-State and Mr.
Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor in the interim
application.

¶23

3.Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at a considerable length, it appears that the entire transaction of
bringing various investors for execution of the project is of complex
nature. While I could have dealt with entire corporate web created by
the accused for execution of Tanaji Malusare City project, considering
the nature of relief that is sought in the application as well as with a
view to avoid any influence on the trial of the case, I am avoiding to
discus the detailed manner in which transfer of stakes in various
companies as well as investments by various individuals and entities
that has taken place in the present case.

¶24

4.Suffice it to observe that the project -Tanaji Malusare City
was being executed by Gopi Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (GRPL), whose name is
now changed to Sheltrex Karjat Pvt. Ltd (SKPL). It appears that the
Applicant has arranged for investors for execution of the said project on
one hand and at the same time, he appears to have taken part in setting

¶25

Megha 2/6

¶26

7_aba_2378_2021.docx

¶27

up entities for execution of the project either in capacity as adviser or
contractor. It appears that erstwhile GRPL, which is now SKPL is
under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). It appears that
approximately 4000 home buyers have paid various amounts to GRPL,
which is now SKPL, for purchase of houses and only about 880 home
buyers have been delivered possession of their flats. On account of
pendency of CIRP proceedings against GRPL/SKPL, it appears that
construction activity of the project has come to a grinding halt.

¶28

5.The exact role of the Applicant in the entire episode needs
to be ascertained and aspect as to whether the entire transaction has
caused a pecuniary gain to him will have to be first investigated and
then taken for trial.

¶29

6.The FIR in question is lodged at the instance of one of the
home buyers and it has now been almost three years from the date of
lodging of the FIR. The Applicant himself is under interim protection of
this Court since 7 October 2021. There is no denial to the position that
the Applicant has presented himself every time he is asked to do so by
the Investigating Officer. Charge-sheet has already been filed in respect
of the five accused out of the 20 named in the FIR. The Investigating
Officer desperately wants original document of Development Agreement
dated 9 January 2021 executed by GRPL in favour of Sheltrex
Developers Pvt. Ltd.(SDPL). The Applicant claims that despite
making best efforts, the original of the said document is not traceable.
From submissions of Mr. Parkar, a picture is created as if SDPL has
merely acted as a development manager/ construction contractor in the

¶30

Megha 3/6

¶31

7_aba_2378_2021.docx

¶32

present case. This defence goes against covenants of Development
Agreement dated 9 January 2021, under which SDPL is shown to have
been granted development rights in respect of the project. However, my
attention was also invited to a subsequent agreement, under which
SDPL is shown to have been granted contract for carrying out some
construction at the site.

¶33

7.There is yet another aspect, which is required to be taken
into consideration. At the instance of police, it appears that a forensic
audit has been conducted by M/s. V.S. Vaidya and Co., Chartered
Accountants, which shows that an amount of Rs.37 crores has been paid
to M/s. Technic Project Company (TPC), in which the Applicant is a
Director. The Applicant explains this by submitting that TPC has
received a contract from GRPL/SKPL for construction of some area in
the project and that TPC has completed construction of 22 buildings
consisting of 840 flats and has handed them over to GRPL/SKPL. That
the amount due to TPC for carrying out such construction is Rs.50.66
crores whereas amount of Rs.30.94 crores only is received from GRPL.

¶34

8.So far as SDPL is concerned, though there is allegation of
payment of amount of Rs.20.87 crores by GRPL/SKPL, Mr. Parkar
would submit that the entire amount received by SDPL are explained to
the Investigating Officer by producing tally backup of all the associate
companies. Considering the complex nature of the transactions involved
in the present case, in my view co-operation by Applicant for completion
of the investigation is of utmost importance. However, whether

¶35

Megha 4/6

¶36

7_aba_2378_2021.docx

¶37

custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case is the issue in question. In my view, since the
Applicant is already under interim protection for the last about three
years, it would be appropriate that he co-operates in the investigation
by remaining present before the Investigating Officer rather than being
put in custody by denial of anticipatory bail. The investigation appears
to be at final stage of completion. The Applicant needs to co-operate
with the Investigating Officer so that the charge-sheet can be filed in an
expeditious manner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-

¶38

(i) The interim protection granted in favour of the Applicant by order dated 7 October 2021 is made absolute.

¶39

(ii) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station on 27 April 2024, 4 May 2024, 11 May 2024, 18 May 2024 and 25 May 2024 at 11.00 a.m. and co-operate with the Investigating Officer for expeditious completion of the investigation.

¶40

(iii) In the event presence of the Applicant is needed after 25 May 2024, he shall remain present as and when summoned by the Investigating Officer.

¶41

(iv) The Applicant shall not leave India till the investigations are completed and charge-sheet is filed.

¶42

9.With the above directions, the Anticipatory Bail
Application is allowed and disposed of.

¶43

Megha 5/6

¶44

7_aba_2378_2021.docx

¶45

10. In view of disposal of the Anticipatory Bail Application,
interim application does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶46

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶47

Megha 6/6

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanaji Malusare City Association through K.N. Chandramouli v. the 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

Similar cases

Leopold Cafe Kamgar Sanghatana vs Leopold Cafe and Stores

Percept Finserve Private Limited vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Mohammed Zain Khan Vs Emnoy Properties India a Limited Liability Partnership Mumbai- 400052 and Ors.

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

Sushila Dhondu Gurav Deceased Vs Rajesh Krushna Gurav