Thane Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Mira Road Builder In ₹2.17 Crore Flat Fraud Case

The court held that the offences, registered under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, required thorough investigation, and therefore protection from arrest could not be granted.

Pranali Lotlikar Updated: Wednesday, August 13, 2025, 04:35 AM IST
Thane Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Mira Road Builder In ₹2.17 Crore Flat Fraud Case | Representative Image

Thane Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Mira Road Builder In ₹2.17 Crore Flat Fraud Case | Representative Image

The Thane Sessions Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the owner of Mira Road–based Om Constructions after a case was registered against him at the Kashimira Police Station for allegedly usurping the investment amount amount of Rs 2.17 crore from the complainant and also not handing over the possession of the promised flat. The court held that the offences, registered under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA), 1963, required thorough investigation, and therefore protection from arrest could not be granted.

Court Observations on the Case

In its order, the court observed: “In the present case, the manner of commission of the offence is relevant. The accused and co-accused obtained various amounts from customers and failed to allot flats to them for many years. This indicates that from the very beginning, they had the intention to commit the offence of cheating. The offence under Section 318(4) (Cheating) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is serious. The nature of the offence is against the interest of depositors. Therefore, proper investigation is necessary in the presence of the accused. The investigation is still in progress, and the Investigating Officer (IO) has not been given a proper opportunity to carry it out. The IO’s report shows that the accused has not cooperated. In these circumstances, his custodial interrogation is necessary. If such interrogation is not conducted, certain lacunae would remain in the investigation, which could benefit the accused at trial. Releasing him on anticipatory bail would send a wrong message to society and encourage similar offences.”

Complainant’s Investment in 2008

According to the FIR filed by complainant Ashwin Premji Bhanushali, in 2008, he, along with his cousin and friend Kishor Shah, invested Rs 2,17,90,800 towards booking flats in Om Construction projects of accused Vinod Vaghasiya and deceased co-accused Ashok Karkera. They were issued allotment letters, but the Mira-Bhayandar Municipal Corporation later demolished the construction during legal action.

Assurances of Alternate Flats in Avighna Complex

Bhanushali and others then sought a refund, but Vinod and Ashok assured them of flats in a new proposed project, Avighna Complex at Miragaon. After Karkera’s death in 2013, his wife Vidya took over project operations along with Vinod. Despite repeated assurances, no flats or allotment letters were provided.

Discovery of Alleged Misappropriation

By 2024, the accused and others, allegedly began avoiding the complainants. They later discovered that some flats in Avighna Complex were sold to other buyers through a new partner, Shankar Jha. The complainants alleged that their money was misappropriated, leading to the registration of an FIR for cheating.

Defence Claims and Grounds for Bail

The accused opposed the bail plea, claiming innocence and false implication. His counsel argued that the dispute was civil in nature, that he had not accepted any money from the complainants, and that nothing incriminating needed to be recovered from him. They also cited the unexplained delay in filing the FIR and his health conditions, including heart disease, blood pressure, and diabetes, as grounds for bail.

Published on: Wednesday, August 13, 2025, 04:35 AM IST

RECENT STORIES