915-ABA-2614-2026.odt Harish IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2614 OF 2026 Ranganathan Lakshman Iyer ...Applicant V/s. The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent _____________________________________________________________ Adv. Walter Fernandes, for the Applicant. Adv. Bapu V. Holambe, APP for the Respondent – State. API - Nilophar Shaikh, Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai is present. ________________________________________________________ CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned APP for the respondent-state. 2. The applicant has filed the instant application seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 510 of 2026, dated 29.07.2026 registered with Wadala T. T. Police Station, Brihanmumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The FIR is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the complainant alleging that this applicant has induced the complainant and 1/6 915-ABA-2614-2026.odt several other persons to purchase flats and shops in scheme by name, “Nisarg SRA Co-Op Housing Society Ltd”, at a concessional rate. It is alleged that he has represented to the complainant and several other persons that the developer by name M/s. Kukreja Construction represented through Mr. Sahil Kukreja had agreed to allot flats and shops to prospective purchasers at concessional rate and believing on this representation, the complainant has paid an amount of 1,10,00,000/- to ₹ this applicant. 4. In the report, the complainant has alleged that he wanted to purchase two flats and two commercial shops in the said scheme and for that purpose, he has paid several amounts from time to time to this applicant by way of RTGS and cash and the details of the bank accounts are mentioned in the report. It is alleged that the entire amount was paid to the applicant in the month of May 2025 itself. However, neither the flats and shops were allotted nor any possession was given to this applicant. It is alleged in the report that the complainant and several other persons who had paid huge amounts to the applicant had repeatedly insisted for handing over the possession and at that time, the applicant gave them certain keys of certain blocks, but it was found that the keys were not of the respective blocks. The complainant has alleged that along with him, his relatives and friends, as named in the report had similarly paid several amounts to the applicant for purchasing their respective blocks, total 2/6 915-ABA-2614-2026.odt ₹4,32,89,000, however, the applicant has not ensured allotment of any blocks to these persons and has even failed to return their amounts. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR came to be registered against this applicant. 5. Advocate Fernandez learned counsel for applicant submitted that this applicant is falsely implicated in the instant offence. He submitted that the amounts received by the applicant from the complainant and other persons were handed over in cash to the developer, Mr. Kukreja, and hence the entire responsibility of allotment was upon Mr. Kukreja. In support of his submissions, he invited attention to a document, in the nature of Letter of Intent dated 18th January, 2022, in between M/s. Kukreja Constructions, Nirsarg SRA Co-operative Housing Society and complainant and submitted that the complainant is entitled to invoke the arbitration clause of the said letter against Mr. Kukreja and the lodging of the FIR against this applicant is without any basis. He also submitted that the alleged offence against this applicant is not attracted since he is not the developer of the SRA scheme. He submitted that this applicant is ready to extend cooperation in the matter of investigation of the entire offence against the Builder and other persons. 6. As against this, learned APP for respondent opposed the application and submitted that there are specific allegations in the report against this applicant. It is submitted that the complainant has specifically 3/6 915-ABA-2614-2026.odt stated the details of payments made to this applicant from time to time by way of RTGS and cash. It is submitted that the payments made to the complainant and several other persons total amounting to 4,32,89,000/-, ₹ shows the gravity of offence as the prospective purchasers have believed on the inducement and misrepresentation made by the applicant and had paid their hard earned money. Learned APP submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that this applicant has collected several amounts from prospective purchasers by way of RTGS and cash and only to create an impression about allotment of blocks in their name, has forged the documents by incorporating names of prospective purchasers in the list of allottees, just to create an impression that there is an allotment in their name. It is submitted that even though this applicant was not the actual developer, he has collected huge amounts from those persons and in view of failure to get the blocks allotted to them, has committed the offence of cheating. By inviting attention to the statements of the prospective purchasers, it is submitted that the applicant has followed similar pattern of inducing the other prospective purchasers to pay substantial amounts to him, however, there is no allotment of any blocks to them. 7. Apart from this, it is submitted by learned APP that during investigation, the representative of M/s. Kukreja Construction Company by name Mahendra Shyam Sundar Yadav has given a statement that this applicant has misrepresented various prospective purchasers by misusing 4/6 915-ABA-2614-2026.odt name of M/s. Kukreja Construction Company, and by forging documents on their letterhead, cheated several persons. On the basis of the statements recorded during investigation, learned APP submitted that this applicant has misrepresented to the prospective purchasers that Flat/Shops were allotted to them on the basis of forged letter and has extracted huge amounts. It is submitted that considering the magnitude of offence, the investigation is going on and the applicant has not responded to the notices sent by investigating officer and has not extended any cooperation. It is therefore submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. 8. Perused the FIR and the documents made available by learned APP, including statements recorded during investigation. It has to be noted that the complainant has leveled specific allegations against this applicant in the FIR and has given details about payments made to him. Pertinent to note that there is no dispute by the applicant that the amounts mentioned in the FIR have been received by the applicant by way of RTGS. The applicant has failed to file on record any document to show that the amounts were paid to the developer / M/s. Kukreja Construction and as such the contentions of the applicant about giving money to the developer and the resultant responsibility of allotment to be of the developer, is not acceptable. It has also to be noted that, on the contrary, the representative of the developer has given a statement that this applicant has misused the letter head, seal etc. of its construction company and in view of this, it prima facie appears that the 5/6 915-ABA-2614-2026.odt applicant has made misrepresentation to the prospective purchasers, from whom he has collected huge amounts. As such, detailed investigation in this regard is necessary. 9. It has to be noted that during investigation statements of various prospective purchasers have been recorded. It thus appears that the applicant has induced several persons to pay him huge amounts by representing them that they will get blocks in the SRA scheme. It appears that the prospective purchasers named in the FIR, 14 in number, have paid an amount of Rs. 4,32,89,000/- to this applicant, however, they have not been allotted any blocks. Thus, there appears sufficient material to show prima facie involvement of this applicant in the crime. 10. Considering the nature of the allegations and the material placed on record collected by Investigating Agency, at this stage, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of this applicant is required. Having regard to the magnitude of the offence and the overall conduct of the applicant, I am not inclined to exercise discretion to grant bail under section 482 of BNSS. Hence the application is rejected. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 6/6