No pre-arrest bail for builder accused of defrauding sister of ₹70 lakh
A Mumbai builder's anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the sessions court. He is accused of cheating his sister and niece of ₹70 lakh by promising them a flat in his building. Another case has been filed against him by MHADA for not surrendering the premises.
Mumbai: A 56-year-old builder’s anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the sessions court on Thursday. The builder is accused of duping his real sister and her daughter of ₹70 lakh, promising them a flat in his newly constructed Mahim building in 2017.
In a separate case, MHADA had also filed a criminal complaint against the accused for not surrendering the premises as per their agreement.
While rejecting the pre-arrest bail application, additional sessions judge SB Pawar observed that the offence is yet to be registered and this was a clear case of inducement made by the accused right from the inception with dishonest intentions to cheat the complainant, indicating an offence of cheating.
“Ultimately, it is observed that the transactions indicate the ingredients of cheating, and the complaint cannot be treated as a civil dispute and accordingly, the court proceeds to reject the application,” the court said.
According to the prosecution, accused Mohammad Shaikh, planning to redevelop the Mumtaj Mahal Building, promised his sister, Mahlaqa Riyami, and her daughter a flat on the ninth floor and subsequently an agreement was made in 2015. The sister paid ₹60 lakh, pledged her gold ornaments, and paid the remaining ₹10 lakh.
After this, Shaikh suggested his sister and niece occupy a flat on the eighth floor till the ninth floor is constructed. The accused allegedly promised the complainant that he would execute a registered sale agreement when the construction was completed.
In 2021, Riyami realised that though six years had elapsed, her brother had not handed over the flat to her. Upon confrontation, Shaikh allegedly gave absurd answers and then asked his sister and her family to vacate the flat on the eighth floor.
However, the mother and the daughter soon understood that they had been deceived when the brother informed them that he wouldn’t be able to give them a flat and avoided returning their amount.
Advocate Zeeshan Khan, representing the complainant submitted that the accused had taken possession of the flat, renting the same on heavy deposit. He added that even the security cheques given by Shaikh had bounced, involving ₹70 lakh and leaving a missing money trail, necessitating the accused’s custody.
The advocate representing the accused contended that the building’s sanctioned plan always consisted of ground plus eight floors as approved by the MHADA authorities and that he had to submit his sister’s flat on the eighth floor to MHADA as per the agreement. He further criticised the complainant for executing a bogus agreement for the sale of a flat on the ninth floor, a bogus gift deed for a flat on the eighth floor, and for forcibly taking possession of that latter flat.