HC denies anticipatory bail to developers in fraud case

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday denied anticipatory bail to developers accused of cheating by luring a man to invest over ₹72 lakh in a housing project and not giving him possession of the flat.

The complaint, Inamulhaq Barkat Ali Khan, registered at Oshiwara police station, alleged that the accused misled the informant about the ‘Khadija Hitech Tower’ project, leading him to invest over ₹72 lakh without receiving possession of the flat. The court’s decision follows evidence of fraudulent conduct and the financial distress Khan faces, exacerbated by his wife’s serious health issues.

The accused Siddik Mohammed Hafizi, Irfan Yusuf Hafizi, and Iqbal Valli Hafizi sought anticipatory bail in the said case on October 2, 2023. The allegations against the trio include cheating, criminal breach of trust, and unauthorized construction, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963.

The incident dates back to 2010 when he was approached by Iqbal and Irfan regarding a residential project, ‘Khadija Hitech Tower,’ developed by M/s Hitech Town Developers and M/s Hafizi Builders. After visiting the project site, where construction had reportedly reached the 11th floor, Khan purchased a flat for ₹72.5 lakh. However, he later learned it was an unauthorised construction, leading to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation halting the work.

Khan claimed that he was coerced into making further payments under false pretences, receiving only a rough, unregistered agreement with forged signatures. In 2021, when he sought possession, he was allegedly threatened by Irfan, after which he filed the FIR.

Advocates for Siddik, Irfan and Iqbal argued that there was no intent to defraud Khan, emphasizing that possession was granted up to the 21st floor and that construction plans were approved only conditionally. They maintained that changes in regulations prevented further construction.

However, Khan’s legal representatives, Advocate B P Pandey, advocate Ridhima Mangaonkar and advocate Shyam Tripathi, highlighted the severe financial loss he endured, which has hindered his ability to afford medical treatment for his wife, who is battling cancer. They asserted that the evidence substantiates serious charges of cheating and misappropriation.

Supporting Khan’s claims, the additional public prosecutor Prashant Jadhav noted Siddik’s multiple antecedents and the gravity of the offences, urging the court to deny bail.

Justice Sarang Kotwal concluded that the applicants misled Khan throughout the transaction, failing to disclose critical information regarding the limitations of the construction plans. He underscored the significant financial and emotional toll on Khan, who has waited over fourteen years for possession of the property. Moreover, the court stated that the circumstances revealed clear intent to defraud, thus supporting the charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust, leading to the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.