Additional Sessions Judge AR Purwar has rejected the anticipatory bail application of real estate developer Kalyanrao Jagannath Jadhav in connection with a case lodged against him under section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13 of the MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act). Jadhav had filed the anticipatory bail application before the court in the said case related to an FIR lodged by builder Ravindra Sakla on June 7, 2018, for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The judge in the order stated ‘perusal of memorandum of understanding prima facie makes it clear that the Jadhav has received a total amount of Rs 4 crore from the informant and Ramesh Kawediya either by real-time gross settlement (RTGS) or by cheque,’ it stated. The documents further prima facie makes it clear that Jadhav has executed an agreement of sale in respect of unit no 2 to 4 in favour of the informant and Kawediya. The striking feature is that though it is contended that the applicant paid from time to time has paid interest to the informant. However, not a single document to that effect has been produced on record. The reply of the state makes it clear that the applicant though attended investigating officer has not co-operated in its real sense, the order stated. “The offence is serious in nature. To unearth it in detail investigation is necessary. If the applicant is insulated with the protection the investigation may not be so effective. Considering the overall aspect of the matter and for the reasons narrated above, I am not inclined to allow the prayer by using discretion. The application is rejected,” the judge stated.Jadhav in his submission stated that he is a businessman and also a government contractor. He is a builder, He is chairman of K J Group of Educational Institutes and running four engineering colleges etc. He is a permanent resident of Pune. False complaint came to be lodged to recover time barred money. The complainant is a money lender. The property was given as a security. Rupees one crore already returned to the complainant. The agreement was not registered. There is delay in lodging the report. Unit no 2 to 4 came to be sold by him after the money was returned to the informant and as such no offence at all made out. The transaction is of civil in nature and given colour of criminal litigation. The property was sold after giving due notice to the informant. There is no criminal antecedents. He is ready to co-operate to the investigation.He prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.