:1:
Order on BA No.101/24
MHCC020006812024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI
ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2024
IN
C.R. No.61 of 2023
Jayesh Vinod Tanna
Age : 60 years,
Having his office address at Plot No.1,
Ram Kripa Building,
Devji Bhimji Lane, Mathuradas Road,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067.

]
]
]
]
] Applicant/
]… Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through EOW, Housing Unit-2, Mumbai)
]
]… Respondent
Appearances:Ld. Advocate Pawan Mali along with Ld. Advocate Kunal Ambulkar for
the Applicant.
Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent.
Ld. Advocate Dilip Shukla for the Intervenor – Bhavin Narhari Bharor.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
ADITEE UDAY KADAM,
(Court Room no. 7)
DATE : 23rd February, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1.

The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused
Jayesh Vinod Tanna resident of Kandivali(W), Mumbai, under
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
:2:
Order on BA No.101/24
regular bail.
2.

A case being C.R. No.61 of 2023 is registered with EOW,
Mumbai (C.R. No.658 of 2023 registered with Goregaon Police
Station) against the present Applicant for the offence punishable
under Sections 406, 409, 420, 448 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) as well as under
Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 13 of Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act
(hereinafter referred as “MOFA Act”).

3.

Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing its say at
Exhibit No.02 & 05. The intervention application of first
informant/intervenor – Bhavin Narhari Bharor is allowed vide
order dated 18.01.2024 and resisted present application.

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-
Informant booked a residential flat in the project of applicant
namely ‘Sai Siddhi Developers’ at Goregaon (West), Mumbai.
Booking was done on 30.09.2012 for purchase of Flat No.B/1203.
Accordingly, agreement was registered on 17.01.2013. Since
thereafter, on time to time informant has paid amount of
Rs.1,62,75,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Two Lakhs Seventy
Five Thousand only) to Sai Siddhi Developers. Possession of the
flat was required to be given in December 2013. But for one or
other reason, applicant delayed to give possession of the flat to
the informant. In the same manner, there are other 27 investors,
who have invested their hard-earn money in the project, but
return was not given to them as promised. Applicant has accepted
amount of Rs.40 Crores but did not complete the construction
:3:
Order on BA No.101/24
and thereby, duped the investors for unlawful gain. Hence, the
report came to be lodged against the applicant.
5.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the
Prosecution, Investigating Officer and Ld. Advocate for the
Intervenor.

6.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that, the applicant
came to be arrested on 16.12.2023. Charge-sheet is not yet filed.
Admittedly, informant and other investors have invested the
amounts in the project. Agreement to Sale were registered to that
effect. But unfortunately, during the period dispute arose in
between developers and original society. Various litigation to that
effect were going on. Informant was well aware about the
changing circumstances. This aspect, clearly shows that there was
no element of cheating on part of applicant. Basically, it is a civil
dispute, based on documentary evidence. Non sanction of FSI
caused delay to complete the project. Various disputes are going
on before different forums. No criminality can be attracted in
such transactions which are purely based on contractual
obligations. Applicant is not an agent and therefore, Section 409
of IPC would not get attracted. Applicant was deprived from his
rights of development and therefore, he is actually victim. Thus,
Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that no case made out
by the prosecution to languish the applicant behind bar. He be
released on bail.

7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP and the Ld. Advocate for the intervenor
submitted in one tune that, the applicant acted in deceptive
:4:
Order on BA No.101/24
manner since inception and collected huge amount from various
investors. He has allured investors with a promise to give
possession of residential flats in the project till December 2013.
All poor investors were in hope that, they will get the possession
of their flats even after some delay. Applicant have constructed
two wings in the project i.e. A and B. Intentionally, he has not
completed the construction in A wing for the flats of original
investors i.e. old Society and though he has accepted huge funds
from the investors, he has not completed the project within time.
Thereafter, old Society has filed various litigation against the
applicant by which members of the Society got possession in the
wing which was constructed to the extent of 80%. But the new
investors like informant did not get anything. Conduct of the
applicant reflects that he has used the funds invested by the
investors, for his personal purpose. There are entries in bank
statements that, since 2013 amounts were received to his
personal account from the account of Sai Siddhi Developers.
There are many other offences lodged against him of the same
nature. Modus operandi applied by the applicant to commit
offence is same. Anticipatory bail application filed by the
applicant was rejected. Other two accused are absconding, who
are near relative of the applicant. Thus, it is submitted that,
considering all these aspects, this application be rejected.
8.

On perusal of record it reveals that, applicant is a builder and
developer by profession. Admittedly, informant and other
investors have invested huge funds in the project with the hope
that, they will get return i.e. residential flat out of it. It reflects
that the investors have invested the amounts which is their hard-
:5:
Order on BA No.101/24
earn money and some of them even raised an amount by taking
loan. They are paying the installments of the said loan. The
applicant could not complete the project due to his own fault. His
conduct would not be categorized as civil dispute. There is prima
facie evidence to indicate that he has diverted the amounts
received for the project to his personal account. Other accused,
who are also the Directors of Sai Siddhi Developers are
absconding. They left the country. Record reflects that there are in
all 9 offences registered against the applicant of the same nature.
As such conduct of the applicant prima facie reflects that, he has
duped
many
investors
to
secure
unlawful
gain
and
misappropriated the funds invested by various investors.
9.

Nature and the accusation against the applicant is quite
serious. Charge under Section 409 of IPC is made applicable
which is punishable up to life imprisonment. Considering the
conduct of other Directors that they are absconding, there is
every possibility that this applicant may flee away from the
justice, if released on bail. Huge funds of public at large is
involved. There are several criminal cases pending against the
applicant. All these aspects cumulatively reflects that the
application
filed
by
the
applicant
does
not
deserves
consideration. Hence, the following order :ORDER
1. The present Bail Application No.101 of 2024 filed by the
Applicant Jayesh Vinod Tanna in connection with C.R. No.61 of
2023 is registered with EOW, Mumbai (C.R. No.658 of 2023
registered with Goregaon Police Station) against the present
Applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409,
420, 448 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well
as Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 13 Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act is
:6:
Order on BA No.101/24
hereby rejected.
2. The present Bail Application No.101 of 2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)

Date: 23/02/2024
Mumbai
sd/(ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under
The Maharashtra Protection of
Interest of Depositors Act, 1999,
for Gr. Bombay
Dictated directly on computer: 23/02/2024
Signed by HHJ on
: 23/02/2024
:7:
Order on BA No.101/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT /ORDER”
26.02.2024 at 10.35 a.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Ms. R. D. Tari
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.)

H.H.J. A. U. Kadam
C.R. No.07
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order
23.02.2024
Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on
23.02.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
26.02.2024