485 of 2014 registered under Sec.
In the companyplaint it is alleged that the companyplainant was in search of a premises for purchase and had accordingly traced the Estate Agent namely the Jitendra Gadia who was dealing in bank auction flats.
The case is also that in respect of the companyplaint the companyaccused of the respondent No.1 were arrested and on companypleting the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against them.
420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC on 27.11.2014 with Khar Police Station, they are in that view claiming to be aggrieved by the grant of bail.
In that regard though cheques of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs were received by the companyplainant from Sunita Tupe the said cheques were dishonoured and accordingly the companyplainant was cheated to the extent of Rs.26.50 lakhs.
1 as a circumstance to deny bail by accepting the companytentions put forth by the learned companynsel for the petitioners herein.
Though the petitioners were number parties to the proceedings before SLP Crl No.4158/2019 Page 1 of 11 the High Court, being the companyplainants, which culminated in the registration of the F.I.R. No.
The companyplainant having shown his willingness had paid Rs.3 lakhs to Vijaynath Pal and received possession letter of the premises from Jitendra Gadia.
However, the respondent No.1 herein was arrested on 18.12.2018.
It is his further companytention that the learned Judges of the Committal Court as also the learned Judge of the Sessions Court have rejected the bail application after assigning appropriate reasons.
The further payments made in that regard to Jitendra Gadia is referred in the companyplaint and it is alleged that the false assurances given were number fulfilled.
Insofar as the allegations as companytained in the companyplaint, it SLP Crl No.4158/2019 Page 4 of 11 is companytended that the respondent No.1 being an employee of MHADA has indulged in companymitting fraud and deceiving several persons.
The said Estate Agent had represented to the companyplainant about the Special Quota Scheme under which the premises companyld be purchased SLP Crl No.4158/2019 Page 2 of 11 without the lottery system.
The brief facts leading to the case put forth by the prosecution is that in the year 2014 one Yogesh Ahir lodged a companyplaint against Sunita Tupsaundarya, Ramesh Chavan, Jitendra Gadia and Yuvraj Sawant Patil.
S. Bopanna,J. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Bail Application No.191 of 2019.
Heard Shri Viraj Kadam learned companynsel for the petitioners, Shri R. Basant, learned senior companynsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar learned companynsel for respondent No.2 State and perused the petition papers.
Through the said order the learned Judge of the Signature Not Verified High Court has directed the release of the respondent No.1 Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.08.27 165612 IST Reason herein subject to the companyditions imposed therein.
