HC refuses pre-arrest bail to woman who fraudulently took over borrower’s flat in Panvel

The the court that the accused had misused the power of attorney and executed the sale deed without informing complainant

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday denied anticipatory bail to a Panvel-based woman accused of fraudulently transferring ownership of another woman’s flat into her own name under the guise of advancing a loan. Justice Amit Borkar, while rejecting the plea of Savita Dashrath Babar, observed that the case involved “misuse of confidence and abuse of legal instruments to dispossess a woman of her property.”

(Shutterstock)

According to the prosecution, the complainant, Guljara Wali Ahmad Maniyar, was in financial distress and sought a loan of ₹20 lakh from Babar to help her son start a business. It is alleged that Babar initially handed over ₹12 lakh but later prepared documents and obtained the complainant’s signature on a promissory note and power of attorney without her knowledge.

As per the FIR registered against Babar at New Panvel police station for cheating under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Babar allegedly used the power of attorney to execute a sale deed in her own name and took possession of the complainant’s flat, claiming Maniyar had not repaid the loan. The flat, located in Panvel, was purchased by Maniyar for ₹70.66 lakh. However, the sale deed Babar had prepared mentioned a consideration of only ₹30 lakh, an amount not backed by any bank records or receipts.

The alleged incident came to light after the complainant filed a complaint on May 2, 2025. Babar approached the court under Section 482 (anticipatory bail) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking protection from arrest.

Advocate Rakesh Patil, appearing for the applicant, argued that his client held a valid moneylending licence and had advanced a lawful loan of ₹20 lakh to the complainant. He contended that when Maniyar failed to repay, Babar acted as per the power of attorney that was “lawfully executed” in her favour. But, Babar is ready to return the flat’s possession to Maniyar if she clears her dues, added Patil, claiming this offer showed “good faith and cooperation.”

Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Rajashree Newton told the court that Babar had misused the power of attorney and executed the sale deed without informing Maniyar. The consideration of ₹30 lakh was unsupported by any proof of payment, and the applicant failed to produce a valid moneylending licence.

Newton further said that custodial interrogation was necessary to examine financial documents, track the money trail, and verify whether Babar had engaged in similar fraudulent property dealings in Panvel or elsewhere in the past.

After hearing both sides, Justice Borkar noted that the material on record showed a prima facie case of deception and abuse of legal process. “The allegations disclose misuse of confidence and abuse of legal instruments to dispossess a woman of her property,” the court observed. Finding that there was no documentary evidence to support Babar’s claim of having lent ₹20 lakh or making any genuine sale transaction with Maniyar, the court held that the case required further investigation.

“Considering the gravity of the allegations, the absence of supporting evidence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion,” Justice Borkar concluded. He added that granting anticipatory bail at this stage “would seriously hamper the course of investigation,” and send an incorrect signal to the public.

He also rejected the applicant’s offer to return the flat in exchange for repayment, stating, “Criminal liability arising from an act of deception cannot be settled through private negotiation at the cost of investigation.”