Dismissed¶37

Akbarali Akramal Syed v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025ABA/1799/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Rajesh S. Patil, J.) on 11.02.2025 dismissed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1799 of 2024 filed by Akbarali Akramal Syed under Section 438 CrPC in FIR No. 0340 of M.I.D.C. Police Station (Ss. 420, 406, 465, 468 IPC). The applicant, an estate agent, was alleged to have taken Rs. 23,40,000/- from the informant promising a room never delivered. The Court held that the payment receipts issued by the applicant proved he personally received the consideration despite claiming mere-broker status, and that custody was required to trace the money trail and detect further victims.

What did the court decide?

If the applicant were a mere broker and not a vendor, there would have been no reason for him to issue payment receipts to the first informant. ¶35

Akbarali Akramal Syed vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

KVM

¶2

1/4

¶3

5 - ABA 1799 OF 2024.doc

¶4

Digitally signed KANCHAN by KANCHANVINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date:2025.02.13 14:43:27 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1799 OF 2024 Akbarali Akramal Syed ….. Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

….. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Vishal M. Deshmukh for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr. Amit A. Palkar, A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

Ms. Trupti M. Khamkar for the Respondent No.2.

¶14

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶15

DATE : 11^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶16

P.C. :-

¶17

This application is filed for seeking pre-arrest bail under

¶18

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR No. 0340 registered with M.I.D.C. Police Station, Brihan Mumbai Shahar for the offence punishable under

¶19

Sections 420, 406, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶20

It is the case of the prosecution that the present

¶21

KVM

¶22

2/4 5 - ABA 1799 OF 2024.doc

¶23

applicant/accused is an estate agent who had taken money from the informant of around Rs.23,40,000/-, so as to handover a room. Though the entire consideration was paid by the first informant, the present accused who had shown her room and in whose office she had been to pay the money, has later refused to give her the said room. Neither did he returned back the money which he had taken from the first informant. Hence, has lodged the FIR.

¶24

Today before me, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the present applicant has no role to play as the entire money has taken by one Mr.Madan Mansoori and it was only Mr.Madan Mansoori who was suppose to give the flat to the applicant. The applicant was working in the whole transaction for receiving brokerage of 1%. He has further referred to page no.35 of this anticipatory bail application wherein a photocopy of a nameplate of the informant has been shown on the transit flat. It is submitted that the said transit flat was allotted to the informant by the HDIL Builder. Therefore, the

¶25

3/4

¶26

KVM

¶27

5 - ABA 1799 OF 2024.doc

¶28

custody of the present applicant is not required and the present anticipatory bail application should be allowed.

¶29

On behalf of the respondent no.2/informant, it has been

¶30

submitted that the entire payment was received by the present applicant who was responsible for showing the different flats to the informant. After taking cheques from the informant, the applicant used to fill in the name of the different parties in order to honour those cheques and thereafter it is understood that the applicant used to withdrew those monies. Hence the present anticipatory bail application should be rejected since the applicant has cheated many prospective buyers in that locality.

¶31

On behalf of the learned A.P.P., it is submitted that the applicant atleast has cheated three more people in the similar fashion. Photocopies of the receipts has been tendered before me which shows that the applicant has acknowledged the receipt of payment from the present informant.

¶32

4/4

¶33

KVM

¶34

5 - ABA 1799 OF 2024.doc

¶35

In my view, if the applicant is a mere broker and not a vendor, there was no reason for the applicant to issue payment receipts to the first informant. Issuance of this kind of payment receipts shows that the applicant himself has received the entire consideration amount. Taking into account that the first informant is not the only person to whom the applicant has lured and has taken away her monies, neither the flat nor the amount has been returned back to the informant.

¶36

In such a situation, it is necessary that the police should investigate the matter further by taking the custody of the applicant and find out the money trail in the present transaction and how many more such allotment has been done by the applicant.

¶37

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶38

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]

Akbarali Akramal Syed v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akbarali Akramal Syed v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepa Sudesh Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Didar Dildar Hussain Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Surekha Sudhir Sakhare vs State of Maharashtra

Bharat Dnyandeo Ghadge vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Raigad vs Alisab Ibrahim Mahaldar and Ors.

Raj Subodh Singhania vs the State of Maharashtra