1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1830 OF 2022
CNR NO. MHCC02­009924­2022
Deepak Chandulal Lohana
Age: 59 years, Occ.: Business,
R/at : 503/504, Golf Scappe,
A Wing, ST Road, Mumbai – 400 071.

…Applicant/Accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of DCB­CID Unit 6)
…Respondent/State
Appearances :­
Mr. Faiz Merchant, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused.
Ms. Ratnavali Patil, Ld. APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Waghesh Mishra, Ld. Advocate for the applicant.
CORAM : H. H. THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHRI A.A. KULKARNI (C.R. NO.24)
DATED : 11TH AUGUST, 2022
(ORAL ORDER)
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of Cr. P.C.
Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant, Ld. Advocate for interverner and
Ld. APP for the State. Perused documents on record.
2.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that C.R.

No.68/2022 has been registered by DCB­CID Unit 6 for offence
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 506, 120­B of IPC
against applicant and three others. Initially offence was registered by
Chembur police station vide Crime No.477/2022. Offence is registered
2
on the basis of information lodged by informant Kailash Kothari. In
brief, it is his allegation that in the year 2007, he was intending to
purchase property at Chembur. One Mehul Parekh introduced him with
present applicant and Deepak Meghnani who were Partners of M/s. Sai
Builders and Developers. It is his further contention that they propose
him to purchase property owned by Smt. Kamu Premji Rathod. She
executed one ir­revokable Power of Attorney and MOU in favour of
M/s. Sai Builders and Developers. After verification of documents,
informant
decided
to
purchase
property
for
consideration
of
Rs.4,26,00,000/­ from M/s. Sai Builders and Developers. It is further
contended that informant paid amount of consideration to Mehul
Parekh. He transferred that amount to M/s. Sai Builders and
Developers. Thereafter, inspite of transfer of property in favour of
informant, M/s. Sai Builders and Developers transferred it in their own
name and thereby cheated informant.
3.

It is contention of Ld. Advocate for applicant that there is
no direct agreement between informant and applicant’s firm M/s. Sai
Builders and Developers. No amount is directly transferred by informant
to M/s. Sai Builders and Developers. Mehul Parekh who is stated as
Middleman to whom informant paid amount of consideration, is not
accused in this case. It is further contended that prima facie there is no
documents on record which can be said as forged documents. The
documents executed by original owner in favour of M/s. Sai Builders
and Developers are genuine documents. Later on Sale Deed executed in
their favour is also genuine document. Mehul Parekh failed to pay
entire amount of consideration. Therefore, transaction could not be
taken place. It is further contended that partnership between Deepak
Menghani and applicant is dissolved. It is his contention that there is
3
inordinate delay in lodging of FIR. Property is presently in the name of
accused No.3 i.e. Kunal Lohana who is released on bail by the Hon’ble
High Court in ABA No.1878/2022. It is also contended that applicant is
not having any criminal antecedents. He is ready to co­operate police.
Hence, prayed for grant of bail.
4.

Ld. APP filed say Exh.2 and opposed the application on the
ground that for the purpose of investigation, signatures are required,
forged
documents
are
to
be
seized
as
well
as
amount
of
Rs.3,85,00,000/­ taken by applicant from Mehul Parekh, is to be seized
at his instance. Hence, prayed for rejection of application.
5.

Informant appeared through his Advocate and opposed the
application. It is his contention that MOU was executed between Mehul
Parekh and informant, wherein applicant was witness. It is further
contended that there is prima facie record showing receipt payment by
applicant from informant through Mehul Parekh. Accused No.2 also
received amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/­ through Mehul Parekh. Accused
Nos.1 and 2 agreed to acquire property of original owner and further
agreed to transfer it to informant. For that purpose they accepted
amount of Rs.3.85,00,000/­ from informant. In such circumstances,
custodial interrogation of applicant is necessary. Hence, prayed for
rejection of application.
6.

In view of submission advanced by both the parties and on
perusal of documents filed on record, it is not disputed that Deepak
Meghnani and accused No.3 were Partners of M/s. Sai Builders and
Developers. It is on record that applicant retired from partnership in the
year 2017. It is also on record that original owner transferred property
4
in the name of accused No.3. It is on record that Mehul Parekh acted as
Middleman. There is prima facie record that applicant returned amount
of Rs.1 crore to Mehul Parekh. Applicant admitted that they have to pay
Rs.1.50,00,000/­ to Mehul Parekh as agreed transaction could not be
completed. Also statement is made before Court that applicant is ready
to pay amount to Mehul Parekh even as per the order of the Court. In
view of all the fact stated by both the parties about transaction taken
place between informant, Mehul Parekh, accused No.1 and accused
No.2, it is clear that there was no direct transaction between informant
and applicant and was between informant and M/s. Sai Builders and
Developers. Further no document on record is shown by Investigating
Officer or informant which can be prima facie termed as forged
document. Therefore, prima facie no forgery against informant appears
nor any forged document is on record. Admittedly, there are some
financial transactions between M/s. Sai Builders and Developers and
Mehul Parekh as well as between Mehul Parekh and informant. There is
one unregistered MOU. Whether is it acted upon or not cannot be
ascertained at this stage. In view of all above circumstances on record, I
am of the opinion that when all the documents are available, offence
can be investigated on the basis of those documents. Applicant admitted
that he owe amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/­ payable to Mehul Parekh.
Therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation for recovery of
amount as per allegation of informant. For the purpose of obtaining
signatures and other required co­operation for the purpose of
investigation, applicant may be directed to appear before Investigating
Officer. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no need
of custodial interrogation. Therefore, applicant is entitled to be released
on bail. Hence, I passed the following order :­
5
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No. 1830 of 2022 is allowed.

2.

Applicants/accused Deepak Chandulal Lohana be released on bail
on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.2,00,000/­ along with one or
two sureties of like amount each in connection with C.R.
No.68/2022 registered with DCB­CID Unit 6.

3.

Applicant/accused shall attend DCB­CID Unit 6 on notice by
Investigating Officer.

4.

Applicant/accused shall furnish his residential address proof and
contact numbers to Investigating Officer.

5.

Applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any Police Officer.

6.

Applicant/accused shall not leave India without previous
permission of the Court.

7.

Bail before Ld. Court below.

8.

Criminal Bail Application No.1830 of 2022 stands disposed of
accordingly.

Date : 11.08.2022
Dictated on
: 11.08.2022
Transcribed on : 11.08.2022
HHJ signed on : 11.08.2022
[A.A. KULKARNI]
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
GREATER MUMBAI
6
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
12.08.2022
Upload Time
4.30 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
PRAJWALA V. PHODKAR
Name of the Judge (With HHJ SHRI. A.A. KULKARNI (CR 24)
Court Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of 11.08.2022
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by 11.08.2022
P.O. on
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded 12.08.2022
on