Mumbai: The sessions court has denied anticipatory bail to a 68-year-old builder and his sons for allegedly failing to complete the redevelopment of Maruti (Malad) Co-operative Housing Society. The accused is Shailesh Shah of M/s Survodaya Builders and Developers, and his sons are Ruchit and Chintan.
The FIR was filed at Malad police station on March 21, by retired police officer Dilip Maruti Nirmal, who alleged that the society entered into a registered redevelopment agreement with the builder in January 2023.
The builder submitted that the original building had been demolished and foundation work had begun, indicating genuine intent. They pointed out that the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority registration is valid from January 25, 2024, to September 30, 2027. Additionally, a commencement certificate was granted by the MCGM on August 29, 2023.
Their defence argued that a mere delay due to unforeseen factors does not amount to criminal breach of trust or cheating. They said the society had issued a termination notice on October 23, 2024, and that the builder responded. The complainant had also approached the high court to change the architect, reinforcing that the dispute was civil in nature and supported by documents. Hence, custodial interrogation was not necessary.
However, the prosecution objected, stating that Rs 3 crore had been misappropriated and that construction had yet to begin more than a year after the agreement. “The society members are homeless as their building was demolished for redevelopment,” it submitted. It also pointed to three prior similar cases registered against the accused.
After hearing both sides, the court said, “On going through the statements of the witnesses, there is prima facie evidence against the accused and their involvement in the commission of the alleged offence wherein the informant and the other flat holders have deposited the amount with the accused.”
“There is also prima facie evidence in respect of the accused taking the money from the informant as well as the other flat holders for redevelopment of the society, wherein the work of the construction was not started despite the execution of the agreement,” the court added.
Noting the accused’s past criminal antecedents, the court said, “The investigation is in progress… there is a reasonable ground to believe that they have attributed an active role in the commission of the alleged offence,” and denied them anticipatory bail.
