Mumbai Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Real Estate Developer and Son in Flat Allotment Fraud Case

The Mumbai Sessions Court in Dindoshi has denied anticipatory bail to 66-year-old Ashok Jethwa and his son Mihir, both of Triveni Developers Ltd, in a case filed by a flat purchaser. The complainant alleged that the developers failed to hand over the flats or return the money as promised.

The case was registered on January 1, 2023, by a flat purchaser who claimed that Ashok Jethwa and his son had accepted payments for two flats in one of their company’s projects. Despite receiving the payments, the developers did not deliver the flats and did not refund the money.

In their bail plea, Ashok Jethwa and Mihir argued that they had provided an allotment letter to the complainant as per the agreement. They also mentioned that the project's completion was delayed due to the pandemic between 2020 and 2022. However, the court noted that the redevelopment agreement with the society was canceled in 2023. Despite this, the developers neither returned the money nor informed the complainant about the cancellation.

The prosecution contended that Ashok Jethwa and Mihir are partners in Triveni Developers Ltd and had issued an allotment letter for the flat to the complainant. However, the flat was sold to another person, leaving the complainant without a flat or a refund. The investigating officer further stated that the duo failed to appear before the investigating officer when served with notices.

The complainant also pointed out that Ashok Jethwa and Mihir have been involved in several other cases and are not residing at the address they provided for communication. The court, after reviewing the documents and arguments, noted that the developers had accepted a large sum from the complainant and their sister-in-law. The court observed that the developers’ actions showed their intention to defraud the complainants.

The court stated, “The document produced by the applicants shows that the society to which the applicants made an agreement was canceled by the society in 2023. However, the applicants neither returned the money nor informed the informant, which indicates their intention.” The court further rejected the developers' contention that the complainant was trying to convert a civil case into a criminal one.

In its final decision, the court refused to grant the duo any relief from arrest, stating, “Granting pre-arrest bail at this stage would create hurdles in the investigation. The tampering of prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. Prima facie, an offence has been made out against the applicants, and it cannot be inferred that they were falsely implicated in the crime.”

This ruling highlights the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and thorough investigation in cases of alleged fraud, especially in the real estate sector, where such issues can profoundly affect the lives of homebuyers.