Mumbai: The sessions court, Dindoshi has refused to grant anticipatory bail to Ashok Jethwa (66) and his son Mihir of Triveni Developers Ltd booked by Borivali police station in connection with the complaint lodged by flat purchaser as they allegedly failed to hand over the flat or returned the money.
The case against the father – son was registered on January 1, by a flat purchaser in one of their company’s projects. The complainant had claimed that the informant and his sister-in-law had booked two flats and paid the amount to the applicants. But, applicants have not given the flats to them or not returned any amount.
The father – son had in their plea claimed that as per agreement letter of allotment was given to the informant and in the year 2020 to 2022 due to Pandemic situation, the project was not completed within time. It was further claimed that thereafter the society had cancelled the redevelopment agreement.
The prosecution however, claimed that the father – son are partners in Triveni Developers, and had issued an allotment letter for the flat to the complainant, but the said flat was, however, sold to some other person. The informant hence did not get flat or got the money refunded.
Further, the investigating officer had said that even when the duo were served with the notices to appear before the investigating officer, they failed to do so.
The complainant on the other hand pointed out that the father – son has been booked in several cases. It was also pointed out that they are not residing at the address given by them for any communication.
The court after hearing arguments and perusing the records noted that, “Document produced by the applicants shows that, the society to which the applicants have made an Agreement that was cancelled by the society in the year 2023. But even though an Agreement was cancelled neither the applicants returned the amount not informed to the informant that will show their intention and prima facie applicants have accepted a huge amount from the informant and sister-in-law.”
“Therefore, prima facie from the FIR it can not be inferred that the informant tried to convert a civil case into a criminal offence,” the court said, rejecting the contention of the duo.
Hence, while refusing to grant them any relief from the arrest, the court said, “If at this stage, pre-arrest bail is granted it will create hurdles in the investigation and the tampering of prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. Prima facie offence made out against the applicants; therefore, it cannot be inferred that they were falsely implicated in the crime.”
