Mumbai, May 14: A Mumbai sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to builder Abhayjit Sakalnarayan Dubey of Sudhanshu Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. in connection with an alleged Rs 6.38 crore cheating case involving a steel trading businessman and his family over commercial premises in a proposed housing project at Bhandup (West).
According to the FIR registered by the Bhandup police, complainant Chintan Deepak Salot, 30, a resident of Sarvodaya Nagar in Mulund (West), along with his family members, is engaged in the steel trading business through separate proprietary firms.
Steel supply contracts led to business dealings
The complaint states that in 2022, Salot, his brother Hardik, and father Deepak were introduced to Dubey through a common acquaintance.
Following meetings, the Salot family was allegedly awarded contracts to supply steel on credit for the construction of Aniraj Tower Co-operative Housing Society on LBS Marg, Bhandup (West), and other projects being undertaken by Dubey.
During the course of the business relationship, the Salot family allegedly purchased five commercial units in the under-construction Aniraj Tower project for Rs 4.66 crore. Agreements for sale were registered on October 11, 2022, and possession was allegedly promised by December 2025.
Police said the complainants also supplied steel worth around Rs 3.56 crore to Dubey in phases, of which approximately Rs 15 lakh allegedly remains unpaid.
Allegations of resale to third parties
The complaint further alleges that Dubey subsequently entered into transactions with third parties for the same premises purchased by the Salot family. Four of the units allegedly bought by the complainants were allegedly merged and sold to Dr Nandini Naresh Vaghela and Dr Naresh Suresh Vaghela for Rs 5.75 crore.
Following this, the Salot family allegedly decided not to continue business dealings with Dubey and sought cancellation of the agreements after receiving compensation at prevailing market rates.
As per the FIR, the complainants demanded Rs 5.70 crore for three of the units based on prevailing market prices. However, Dubey allegedly paid only Rs 3.35 crore and refused to pay the remaining Rs 2.34 crore.
The complainants also alleged that one unit worth Rs 1.04 crore and another valued at approximately Rs 3 crore were retained and used by Dubey as office premises, amounting to criminal misappropriation.
Court grants anticipatory bail with conditions
Based on the complaint, Bhandup police have registered a case against Dubey under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and initiated further investigation.
Following registration of the offence, Dubey approached the Mumbai Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. After hearing the matter, Additional Sessions Judge Nitin V. Jiwane granted him pre-arrest bail on a surety bond of Rs 1 lakh.
The court directed Dubey to appear before Bhandup police station every Thursday between 11 am and 4 pm until filing of the chargesheet. He has also been restrained from influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or leaving India without prior permission of the court. The court further directed him to furnish his contact details and addresses of two blood relatives to the investigating agency.
Prosecution opposed bail plea
During the hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor Ramesh Siroya and the investigating officer opposed the bail plea, arguing that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate how the same premises were allegedly sold to third parties despite prior registered agreements with the complainants.
The prosecution also claimed that Dubey’s criminal antecedents were adverse and that further investigation was needed to ascertain whether other persons had similarly been cheated.
Advocates Pravin Gavale and Shobha Shewale appeared for Dubey, while Advocate Prajit Manjrekar represented the intervenor.
Court terms dispute civil in nature
While granting relief, the court observed that both parties had agreed in principle to cancel the sale agreements and that the dispute essentially revolved around the rate of compensation payable for the units.
The court noted that the complainants were seeking compensation based on prevailing market rates, whereas the accused claimed the agreements were executed merely as security for business transactions and that the original consideration amount had already been returned.
The court further observed that no recovery was required from the accused and that Dubey had already cooperated with the investigation after being issued a notice by police in December 2025.
It also noted that cross-complaints had been filed by both sides and that civil litigation between the parties was already pending before registration of the FIR.
Also Watch:
Prima facie, the court held that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature and had been given a criminal colour. “Police machinery cannot be used for recovery of money,” the court observed while granting anticipatory bail.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
