Mumbai, August 11, 2022 – Deepak Chandulal Lohana, a real estate developer, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in connection with a cheating and forgery case. Additional Sessions Judge A.A. Kulkarni granted bail, citing the lack of direct transactions between Lohana and the complainant, and the absence of prima facie evidence of forgery.

Lohana, 59, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 68/2022, registered at DCB-CID Unit 6. He was charged with offenses punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating),¹ 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allegations and Complainant’s Account

The complainant, Kailash Kothari, alleged that in 2007, he intended to purchase property in Chembur. Mehul Parekh introduced him to Lohana and Deepak Meghnani, partners of M/s. Sai Builders and Developers. They proposed that he purchase property owned by Smt. Kamu Premji Rathod, who had executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney and MOU in favor of M/s. Sai Builders and Developers.

Kothari paid Rs. 4,26,00,000 to Mehul Parekh, who then transferred the amount to M/s. Sai Builders and Developers. However, instead of transferring the property to Kothari, M/s. Sai Builders and Developers transferred it to themselves, thereby allegedly cheating him.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations

Lohana’s defense argued that there was no direct agreement between Kothari and M/s. Sai Builders and Developers, and no direct transfer of funds. They also pointed out that Mehul Parekh, the alleged middleman, was not an accused in the case. The defense further contended that the documents executed by the original owner in favor of M/s. Sai Builders and Developers were genuine, and there was no prima facie evidence of forgery.

The court, after reviewing the documents and hearing arguments from both sides, noted the following:

• Lack of Direct Transaction: There was no direct transaction between Kothari and Lohana or M/s. Sai Builders and Developers.
• Mehul Parekh’s Role: Mehul Parekh acted as a middleman, and the complainant paid him the money.
• Genuine Documents: The documents executed by the original owner in favor of M/s. Sai Builders and Developers were genuine.
• Financial Transactions: There were financial transactions between M/s. Sai Builders and Developers and Mehul Parekh, as well as between Mehul Parekh and Kothari.
• No Forgery Evidence: No document on record was shown to be prima facie forged.
• Partnership Dissolution: Lohana had retired from the partnership in 2017.
• Property Ownership: The property was currently in the name of accused No. 3, Kunal Lohana, who had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court.
• Financial Dispute: Lohana admitted to owing Rs. 1,50,00,000 to Mehul Parekh, indicating a financial dispute rather than clear criminal intent.

Reasons for Granting Bail

The court granted bail based on:

• The lack of direct transactions between the complainant and Lohana.
• The absence of prima facie evidence of forgery.
• The financial dispute being more of a civil matter than a criminal one.
• The willingness of the applicant to cooperate with the investigation.

Conditions of Bail

Lohana was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 along with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must attend DCB-CID Unit 6 upon notice by the investigating officer.
• He must furnish his residential address proof and contact numbers to the investigating officer.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence or threaten any witness.
• He must not leave India without prior permission from the court.
• Bail before the Ld. Court below.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The granting of bail highlights the court’s emphasis on direct evidence and the importance of distinguishing between civil disputes and criminal offenses. The court’s decision also reflects the principle that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The case will proceed to trial, where the prosecution will present its evidence, and the defense will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations. This decision reflects the courts careful consideration of facts and circumstances in criminal proceedings.