SACHIN ANANT PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these applications, the Applicants who are apprehending arrest in connection with investigation of Crime No. 49 of 2019 and 50 of 2019 which are presently being investigated by E.O.W., Navi Mumbai under Section 409, 420, 470, 471, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC are seeking anticipatory bail.

(2.) The aforesaid offences are registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Shriniwas Benkhale who is the intervenor.

(3.) The Applicant Roshan Patil, was allotted a plot of land in the year 2009 from CIDCO under 12.5% scheme. The Applicant Roshan Patil had entered into a tripartite development agreement in respect of said plot with Mr. Parbat Gothi in the year 2010. The material allegation is that the Applicant Roshan Patil again entered into an agreement in respect of the said plot with the complainant in November 2011 and accepted an amount of Rs.1 crore by cheque towards consideration from the complainant. When it was disclosed that the Applicant Roshan Patil had entered into two successive agreements in respect of the same plot, the Applicant Roshan Patil represented to the complainant that instead of returning amount, he will ensure that another plot of CIDCO which was allotted to his brother Sachin Patil would be given to the complainant.