Mumbai, February 22, 2024: In a significant development, the Additional Sessions Court of Mumbai has granted bail to Balu Krishnamurti Shetti, the accused in a property fraud case registered under C.R. No. 50/2023 with Wadala T.T. Police Station. The bail application, numbered 108/2024, was allowed by Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A. A. Joglekar (C.R. No.37) after considering the submissions made by both the defense and prosecution.
Case Background
The case against Shetti stems from a complaint filed by an informant who alleged that he was defrauded in a real estate transaction. According to the prosecution, in December 2021, the informant was searching for residential premises for his son when he met an estate agent named Farhan. The agent introduced him to Balu Shetti, who allegedly showed him a property at Truck Terminal Road, Kokari Agar, Mumbai, quoting a price of Rs. 6 lakh. After negotiations, the deal was finalized at Rs. 4.5 lakh.
The prosecution claims that Shetti misrepresented himself as the owner of the premises, stating that he had purchased it from a person named Ganesh Pillai. The informant paid Rs. 2 lakh on December 21, 2021, followed by another Rs. 2 lakh on December 27, 2021, and Rs. 50,000 in cash. A sale agreement, power of attorney, and affidavit were executed between Shekhar Pillai and the informant. Additionally, Shetti allegedly assured the informant that he would renovate the property before handing it over.
Subsequently, Shetti prepared a leave and license agreement between the informant and a third party, Muttu Pandian Tevar, for a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. However, complications arose when, on December 17, 2022, the informant visited the property to collect rent. Tevar refused to vacate, claiming that Shetti had leased the premises to him on a heavy deposit and that he would neither vacate nor pay rent unless his deposit was refunded. This led to the filing of the police complaint against Shetti and others involved.
Prosecution’s Allegations
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that Shetti had misappropriated the entrusted sum for personal use. It was further alleged that he had collected funds from multiple victims under the false pretense of arranging property sales. According to the prosecution, a car purchased by Shetti in his son’s name had already been seized, and he had deliberately used third-party bank accounts to receive payments, demonstrating a premeditated intent to commit fraud. The prosecution also cited the possibility of an organized racket operating behind the alleged fraud.
Concerns were raised regarding the potential for Shetti to abscond, tamper with evidence, or intimidate witnesses if released on bail. As a result, the prosecution sought the rejection of his application.
Defense’s Argument
On the other hand, Shetti’s defense counsel, Advocate V. S. Tiwari, argued that his client was falsely implicated and had no direct involvement in the alleged forgery or misrepresentation. The defense highlighted that the case was filed at a belated stage and that co-accused individuals had already been granted bail. It was also emphasized that Shetti had no prior criminal antecedents.
The defense further relied on two landmark judgments:
- Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (AIR 2022 SC 3386)
- Menino Lopes v. State of Goa (1995 (1) Bom.C.R. 334)
Citing Menino Lopes, the defense argued that if co-accused individuals with similar or more severe charges had been granted bail, Shetti should not be denied the same relief.
Court’s Observations and Bail Order
After considering the arguments, the court noted that the primary role attributed to Shetti was his involvement in the property transaction and appraisal of the premises. However, there was no substantial evidence at this stage to establish his direct participation in document forgery.
The court observed that:
- A charge sheet had already been filed.
- No further recoveries were required from the accused.
- The prosecution’s apprehensions could be addressed by imposing stringent bail conditions.
Thus, granting bail, the court imposed the following conditions:
- Shetti must furnish a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
- He and his sureties must provide their residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses, with immediate notification of any changes.
- He must not directly or indirectly threaten, induce, or influence prosecution witnesses.
- He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
- He must report to the Wadala T.T. Police Station every Tuesday and Friday between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until further orders.
- He must surrender his passport, if any, or submit an affidavit declaring that he does not possess one.
- He must not leave India without the court’s permission.
- Any violation of these conditions would result in immediate bail cancellation.
Conclusion
With this order, the court has granted bail to Shetti while ensuring that necessary safeguards remain in place to prevent potential tampering with evidence or witness intimidation. The case continues to unfold as further proceedings are expected in the coming months.
