February 23, 2024 – Mumbai: The Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act has rejected the bail application of Jayesh Vinod Tanna, a 60-year-old builder from Kandivali (West), Mumbai, in connection with an alleged real estate fraud case. The court ruled against granting bail, citing serious allegations and the risk of the accused absconding.
Case Background
Tanna, associated with Sai Siddhi Developers, was booked under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant or agent), 420 (cheating), 448 (trespassing), and Section 34 (common intention). Additionally, he faces charges under Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act (MOFA).
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Housing Unit-2, Mumbai, registered C.R. No. 61 of 2023 (also C.R. No. 658 of 2023 at Goregaon Police Station) based on complaints from multiple investors. One of the complainants, Bhavin Narhari Bharor, alleged that despite investing Rs. 1.62 crore in a flat at Sai Siddhi Developers’ Goregaon West project, he was denied possession long after the promised deadline of December 2013.
Prosecution’s Argument
The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Seema Deshpande, argued that Tanna systematically collected over Rs. 40 crore from 27 investors but failed to complete the project. The court was informed that while two wings of the project were partially constructed, possession was only given to the original society members, leaving new investors without any return on their investment.
The prosecution further claimed that Tanna had diverted funds for personal use, with bank records indicating substantial transfers from the project’s accounts to his personal accounts since 2013. They also pointed out that two other accused, close relatives of Tanna and co-directors of Sai Siddhi Developers, were absconding, increasing concerns about his potential flight risk.
Defense’s Argument
Advocate Pawan Mali, representing Tanna, argued that the dispute was civil in nature and arose due to legal complications between the developers and the original society. He contended that delays were caused by non-sanction of Floor Space Index (FSI) and ongoing litigations. The defense maintained that Tanna had not acted fraudulently but was himself a victim of circumstances, emphasizing that the charge sheet had not yet been filed.
Court’s Ruling
Presiding Judge Adittee Uday Kadam rejected Tanna’s bail application, citing the severity of the allegations, the substantial public funds involved, and the likelihood of Tanna evading justice. The court noted that multiple criminal cases of a similar nature were pending against him, demonstrating a pattern of financial misconduct.
The court concluded that the nature of the accusations, particularly the charge under Section 409 of IPC, which carries a potential life sentence, warranted continued judicial custody. The judge emphasized that releasing Tanna on bail could jeopardize the investigation and risk further financial losses to investors.
Conclusion
With this ruling, Tanna remains in judicial custody while the investigation continues. The case serves as a cautionary tale for investors and highlights the importance of regulatory oversight in the real estate sector.