No pre-arrest bail to Chhota Shakeel’s relatives over usurpation of SoBo property

The complainant and his family members have settled abroad and the accused allegedly took advantage of the fact and took over the ₹25-crore property – Lambath Building in Umarkhadi area and sold it to someone by using forged documents

Mumbai: The sessions court last week refused to grant anticipatory bail plea to two septuagenarian relatives of gangster Chhota Shakeel. The two were booked by the anti-extortion cell of the Mumbai police for allegedly being part of the conspiracy to usurp the ancestral property of the complainant in connivance with Shakeel’s brother-in-law Salim Qureshi alias Salim Fruit.

No pre-arrest bail to Chhota Shakeel’s relatives over usurpation of SoBo property

In the FIR registered in September last year, Shabir Karolia (78) and Yusuf Karolia (71) are accused of usurping a property owned by the father of the complainant using forged documents.

The complainant and his family members have settled abroad and the accused allegedly took advantage of the fact and took over the ₹25-crore property – Lambath Building in Umarkhadi area and sold it to someone by using forged documents.

The prosecutor pointed out that the applicants / accused knew very well that the father of the informant had died in the year 2006 in South Africa, then also executed the Sale Deed of the property by showing the uncle of the informant, Ibrahim Lambat, as his father. Thus, the prosecutor claimed, the accused were involved in the offence of fabrication of documents, using fabricated documents as genuine to cheat the informant and usurp the property.

Besides, it was pointed out by the police that the accused were relatives of fugitive gangster Chhota Shakeel and they took the help of Shakeel’s brother-in-law (the husband of his wife’s sister) Salim fruit to execute their conspiracy.

The Karolia brothers on the other hand contended that they too were victims and they were cheated by the co-accused Ibraham Hasam Lambat therefore, they had lodged a report against him in Pydhonie Police Station and also filed a civil suit against him seeking damages.

Their lawyer submitted that there was an inordinate delay of more than 6 years in filing the first information report. The informant very well knew that the co-accused had sold the property in question to the applicants and there was no loss caused to the informant, as the property still stands in the name of his father.

The contention, however, failed to impress upon the court. The court said that a detailed investigation of the crime was necessary to find out who had fabricated the documents, who was the beneficiary of the forgery and what was the extent of the fraud. “It is also necessary to seize the said misappropriated amount and therefore for detailed investigation custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary and justified,” said the court while rejecting anticipatory bail pleas of the Karolia brothers.