Mumbai, July 16, 2024 – The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act) at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay, has granted bail to Dilip Bharat Manghnani, a 48-year-old businessman, who was accused in a case of cheating and criminal breach of trust related to a housing project. The bail was granted on July 5, 2024, following an amicable settlement reached between the applicant/accused and the complainant. The detailed order, signed by Designated Judge Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar, was made available on July 15, 2024.

Manghnani was arrested on June 24, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 520/2023 registered with Bandra Police Station. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant¹ or agent), 420 (cheating),² and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code³ (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act, and Section 5 read with 13(1) and Section 5 read with 13(2) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA).

The FIR was lodged by Smt. Meena Tavrani, who, along with her son, had booked a three BHK flat in the proposed “Aryan Tower” building by M/s Suchit Developers. According to the complaint, she paid a total of ₹85,00,000 between 2005 and 2015 towards the flat. However, the construction progressed only up to the 8th floor by 2009 and then stalled. Despite receiving a demand for escalation charges, the complainant did not receive possession of the flat, leading her to file a civil suit in the Bombay High Court, where a Court Receiver was appointed. Subsequently, she lodged the FIR against the accused on April 2, 2023.

Senior Counsel Shri Aabad Ponda, along with Advocates Ashwin Shete, Santosh Avhad, and Vidhi Karia, representing Manghnani, argued that the applicant was innocent, had no criminal antecedents, belonged to a reputed family, and had fully cooperated with the investigating agency. They pointed out that the FIR did not mention any money being deposited in Manghnani’s personal account and that he became a partner of M/s Suchit Developers only in 2013, well after the project stalled in 2009. The defense sought bail, assuring the court that Manghnani would abide by all conditions and not abscond.

The prosecution, led by Ld. APP. Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar, opposed the bail, highlighting the seriousness of the economic offences under the MPID Act and the non-bailable nature of the charges. She informed the court that ₹1,63,00,000 had been paid by seven investors and that the investigation concerning bank details and property involved was still ongoing. The prosecution argued that releasing the accused could lead to tampering of evidence and absconding.

Ld. Adv. Mr. Vijay Jha, representing the intervenor (the complainant), reiterated the complainant’s plight as a 70-year-old widow who had sold her ancestral property to purchase the flat and was now homeless. He emphasized the significant financial loss and the potential for further tampering and absconding if bail was granted. The Investigating Officer echoed these concerns, stating that the investigation regarding other partners and the trail of the invested money was still underway.

However, in a significant turn of events at the fag end of the hearing on the second day, Manghnani and the complainant arrived at a settlement. They informed the court that they had amicably resolved their dispute and intended to file consent terms. Manghnani’s advocate informed the court that since his client was in judicial custody, he was instructed to sign the consent terms on his behalf, undertaking that Manghnani would personally sign them within three days of his release. The complainant, though not present, had already signed the consent terms, and her son, who was present in court, also signed on her behalf as per her instructions.

After carefully reviewing the consent terms and examining the complainant’s son, who affirmed that both he and his mother had fully understood the terms and signed them voluntarily, the court took the settlement on record as Exhibit 12.

In light of the amicable settlement, Judge Nandgaonkar stated that the question of further entertaining the bail application on merit did not arise. Consequently, he allowed the bail application in terms of the consent terms, subject to the following conditions:

1. Dilip Bharat Manghnani shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and providing one or two solvent sureties of the like amount.
2. A cash security of ₹50,000 is permitted provisionally for one month in lieu of the surety bond.
3. The accused shall attend the Bandra Police Station as and when required by the investigating officer upon written intimation/notice until the filing of the charge sheet.
4. The accused and the surety shall inform the police and the trial court of any change in their residential address while the accused is on bail.
5. The accused shall not threaten or influence prosecution witnesses or hamper the investigation.
6. The accused shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the court.
7. Bail is granted before this court.
8. The applicant/accused is directed to appear before the court within three days after his release from jail to sign the Consent Terms.

The Bail Application No. 515 of 2024 was accordingly disposed of. This case underscores the possibility of resolving disputes even in serious economic offences through mutual agreement, leading to the grant of bail by the court. The court’s emphasis on the accused personally signing the consent terms after release highlights the importance of ensuring the genuineness and adherence to the settlement.