Mumbai, October 4, 2022 – Amit Narendra Doshi, a 44-year-old businessman, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a cheating case related to a housing project. Additional Sessions Judge Anand Pandurang Kanade rejected Doshi’s application, citing the well-founded allegations against him and the commencement of the trial.

Doshi was arrested in connection with Crime No. 534 of 2021, registered at Matunga Police Station. He is accused of offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act (MOFA).

The Allegations and Complainant’s Account

The complainant, Vijay Purushottamdas Pattani, alleged that in January 2016, Doshi’s father approached him with a proposal for a family project, the Ramgufa Co-operative Housing Society in Matunga. Doshi and his mother, Charul Doshi, represented that they were constructing a 14-storey building. Pattani decided to purchase a flat on the 14th floor for Rs. 3,05,00,000.

Pattani paid a booking amount of Rs. 81,00,000 through five cheques. He later discovered that Charul Doshi was the proprietor of Adinath Developers, while Amit Doshi was her attorney. An agreement was entered into with conditions including a refund of the booking amount with interest if the project was not completed within the stipulated time.

When the project failed to materialize by 2018, Pattani demanded his money back. Doshi issued a cheque for Rs. 81,00,000, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Pattani then filed proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After Doshi repeatedly failed to return the money, Pattani filed a police complaint.

Prosecution’s Case and Evidence Presented

The prosecution argued that Doshi had cheated Pattani from the inception of the transaction. They presented evidence showing that Doshi had executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as the proprietor of Adinath Developers for the sale of Flat No. 1401.

Crucially, the prosecution highlighted that the trial had commenced. Doshi’s plea had been recorded, and the complainant’s examination-in-chief was completed, with the matter adjourned for cross-examination. The complainant also submitted an adjournment application filed by Doshi, where he had stated his willingness to return the amount. Additionally, a letter from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation revealed that Doshi had not obtained any permission for the building’s construction.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Decision

Doshi’s defense argued that he was falsely implicated and that the complaint was primarily against Charul Doshi, who had been granted anticipatory bail. They claimed that Doshi was not the proprietor of Adinath Developers and that the payment was made to the company. They asserted that Doshi was implicated merely because he was Charul Doshi’s son and that he had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident of Mumbai.

However, the court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the well-founded allegations against Doshi. Judge Kanade noted that Doshi had executed the MOU as the proprietor of Adinath Developers and that the trial had commenced, indicating the seriousness of the case. The court also highlighted the dishonored cheque and the lack of construction permission as evidence of Doshi’s fraudulent intent.

Reasons for Bail Rejection

The court cited the following reasons for denying bail:

• Well-Founded Allegations: The accusations against Doshi were deemed well-founded, with evidence suggesting he had cheated the complainant.
• Commencement of Trial: The trial had commenced, and releasing Doshi could lead to him tampering with evidence or absconding.
• Dishonored Cheque and Lack of Permission: These factors indicated Doshi’s fraudulent intent.
• Possibility of Absconding: The court believed there was a possibility that Doshi could abscond if granted bail.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The denial of bail underscores the court’s seriousness in addressing cases of cheating and fraud, particularly in the real estate sector. Doshi will remain in custody as the trial proceeds. The court’s decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and obtaining necessary permissions in construction projects. The case will continue with the cross-examination of the complainant and the presentation of further evidence.