Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a real estate agent accused of duping a Vile Parle-based restaurant owner of Rs 82 lakh under the pretext of bribing BMC officials to facilitate a property transfer.
Vacation judge, Justice Advait Sethna, rejected the plea observing that the allegations against real estate agent Pawan Mutreja indicated a larger conspiracy involving co-accused Paresh Shah and Prakash Vyas. The FIR, registered on April 14, 2025, at Vile Parle Police Station, is based on a complaint filed by Jayprakash Suru Shetty, owner of Geeta Restaurant.
According to the prosecution, the accused misrepresented to Shetty that a sum of Rs 82 lakh — Rs 50 lakh through bank transfers and Rs 32 lakh in cash — was required as illegal gratification for BMC officials. Prosecution claimed that Rs 9.5 lakh of that money was directly transferred to Mutreja’s bank account, and Rs 9.25 lakh was handed to him in cash.
Mutreja’s advocate, Rahul Moghe, argued that the amount he received was a loan from co-accused Vyas for his mother’s cancer treatment. However, the court found the claim unconvincing. “This appears to be doubtful and an afterthought,” Justice Sethna said, noting the absence of any documentary evidence to support the loan claim.
The court also pointed to WhatsApp chats and an MOU dated January 22, 2025, linking Mutreja to the deal between the complainant and co-accused Vyas, undermining his claim of having no involvement. “This would belie the case of the applicant that he is not concerned at all with the accused nos.2 and 3 (co-accused Paresh Shah and Prakash Vyas),” the court observed.
A voice recording submitted by the prosecution, in which Mutreja is allegedly heard demanding money from the complainant’s daughter to bribe officials, further damaged his plea. “Such material would prima facie indicate an attempt on part of the applicant to influence the prospective witnesses,” the judge noted.
Citing six similar criminal complaints against Mutreja and expressing concern that he may flee justice, the court concluded: “It would be a travesty of justice if the contentions of the applicant are accepted… The anticipatory bail application is rejected.”
