MUJEEBUR REHMAN KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

P.H. Jayani                                            09 ABA3447.2025.doc


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3447 OF 2025
                                  WITH
                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1215 OF 2026
                                   IN
              ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3447 OF 2025

1) Mrs. Sadhana Purab Obhan
2) Mr. Purab Joginder Obhan                              …. Applicants
      v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr.                        …. Respondents

                                  WITH
                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4778 OF 2025
                                   IN
              ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3447 OF 2025

Mujeebur Rehman Khan                                     ….. Intervenor

In the matter between :-
1) Mrs. Sadhana Purab Obhan
2) Mr. Purab Joginder Obhan                              …. Applicants
      v/s.
The State of Maharashtra and anr.                        …. Respondents


Mr. Mahesh Vaswani a/w. Ms. Shreya Tiwari for the Applicants.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Mateen Shaikh for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Wakhare, PSI, Sakinaka Police Station, present.

                           CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                           DATED : 05th JUNE, 2026
                                  (VACATION COURT)

P.C. :-

1)              The Applicants are apprehending their arrest in an FIR bearing
C.R.No.982/2025 registered with Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai under
Sections 3(5), 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on
the report dated 18/10/2025 filed by Respondent No.2.


                                                                                 1/8
P.H. Jayani                                          09 ABA3447.2025.doc


2)            Heard Mr. Vaswani, learned Counsel for the Applicants, Mr.
Khan, learned APP for Respondent No.1 – State and Mr. Shaikh, learned
Counsel for Respondent No.2-Intervenor/First Informant.


3)            The prosecution story is that in April 2025, the informant had
entered into an Agreement to sale with the Applicants. Thereunder, the
informant had agreed to purchase the subject matter tenement owned by
the Applicants for a consideration of Rs.1,95,00,000/-. At that time, the
Applicants had impressed upon the informant that their tenement was free
from all encumbrances and no society maintenance amount was due against
it. Accordingly, MoU was signed by the parties and it was notarised.
Thereafter, till June 2025, the informant paid total Rs.79,00,000/- in the
bank account of Applicant No.1 towards the part consideration. In June
2025, the informant learnt that loan amount of Rs.70-80 Lakhs of Reliance
Bank was outstanding against the said tenement and there are arrears of
Society maintenance of Rs.20,00,000/-. The informant, therefore, inquired
with the Applicants on phone and whats-app about the said dues. In turn,
Applicant No.1 told the informant that he will clear the outstanding loan as
well as the arrears of the maintenance and obtain necessary NOC from the
Bank and the Society. Additionally, Applicant No.1 instructed the informant
to send more money on the pretext that he was in dire need of it. Therefore,
the informant relied upon the said assurance of Applicant No.1 and paid
more money. Till 05/07/2025, the informant had paid Rs.1.20 Crores.
Thereafter, it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount of
Rs.75,00,000/- will be paid on the date of registration of the sale deed.
Then, as suggested by the Applicants, the informant met with them on
17/07/2025 at their residence. Advocate Mr. Abinandan Doshi was present
there. At that time, the Applicants told the informant that they cannot go
ahead with the transaction as they had received a notice from NCLT. Yet,
they assured the informant that they will resolve the issue by 25/07/2025.


                                                                               2/8
P.H. Jayani                                                  09 ABA3447.2025.doc


Accordingly, Advocate Mr. Doshi endorsed on the MoU. Thus, the
informant was again made to trust upon the Applicants. Nevertheless, the
Applicants did not come forward to execute the registered Sale Deed and
despite repeated demands by the informant, avoided the Sale Deed and
refund of Rs.1.20 Crores, falsely stating that, they will procure the
documents required for registration of the sale deed. Thus, the Applicants
cheated the informant and misappropriated his money. Therefore, the
aforesaid crime came to be registered.


4)                 Mr. Vaswani, the learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted
that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. However, giving it a
colour of crime, the informant has filed the said FIR with an oblique motive
and to recover the consideration amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. The FIR
mentions that in June 2025 itself the alleged falsity of the Applicants had
surfaced and came to the knowledge of the informant. Yet, he paid them an
additional amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. This sole fact falsify the narration in
the FIR that the Applicants had suppressed the fact of the outstanding loan
and the arrears of the Society maintenance. Mr. Vaswani submits that the
investigation relates to only collection of the documentary evidence, i.e., the
MoU and statement of the bank accounts of the parties which can be easily
and independently collected by the I.O. As such, custodial interrogation of
the Applicants is not essential. Although the Applicants have antecedents,
they are released on bail in the said crimes. Therefore, the Applicants are
entitled for bail. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Vaswani has relied upon
the following reported decisions :-

              1.   Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565

              2.   Sham Bhatia Vs. State of Maharashtra (Cri. Application No. 605 of
                   1988) decided on 23/03/1988.
              3.   Tarmindar Mehtab Vs. The State of Maharashtra (ABA No. 4 of
                   2014) decided on 17/04/2014.


                                                                                       3/8
P.H. Jayani                                                   09 ABA3447.2025.doc


              4.   SC-Dilip Singh & Ors Vs. State of M.P. & Anr (Criminal Appeal No.
                   53 of 2021) decided on 19/01/2021.

              5.   SC-Bimla Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar & Ors (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 834-835 of
                   2023) decided on 16/01/2023
              6.   Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh (SLP (Cri.) No. 9949 of
                   2023) decided on 01/03/2024
              7.   SC-Ankit Mishra Vs. State of M.P. & Anr 2025 SCC OnLine SC 809
              8.   SC-Prantik Kumar & Anr Vs. State of Jharkhand (SLP (Crl.) D. No.
                   4297 of 2026 decided on 03/02/2026.

5)                 Mr. Khan, the learned APP for the Respondent No.1 – State and
Mr. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the informant-Respondent No.2, on the
other hand, submitted that entire crime is committed in a planned manner.
For that end, the Applicants have suppressed the fact of the outstanding
loan, the arrears of the Society maintenance amount, initiation of the
proceedings under the IBC and thereby induced the informant to part with
huge amount of Rs.1.2 Crores in a short span of time. After receiving the
part considerations, the Applicants never tried to repay the loan, clear the
arrears of the maintenance and obtain the require documents to complete
the transaction. Nor they showed willingness to register the sale deed or to
refund the part consideration amount received from the informant. Thus,
this is a clear case of cheating. Looking at the nature of the offence, custodial
interrogation of the Applicants is necessary to collect the evidence and
recover the money of the informant. They have submitted that similar 10
crimes have been registered against the Applicant No.2 in the past and
Applicant No.1 is also an accused in some of the said crimes. However, the
Applicants did not disclose all the said crimes and its details which is one of
the reasons of the pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court. As such, both the
Applicants are not entitled for bail as prayed for.


6)                 I have considered these submissions and gone through the
reported cases cited by Mr. Vaswani.



                                                                                          4/8
P.H. Jayani                                             09 ABA3447.2025.doc


7)             At the outset, it is important to note that the FIR clearly states
that when the informant entered into the Agreement to Sale/MoU, the
Applicants had told him that the tenement was free from encumbrances and
Society maintenance charges. Therefore, the informant entered into the said
MoU and paid certain amount. Thereafter, when the informant came to
know about the outstanding loan and arrears of the maintenance charges,
he confronted the Applicants with the said fact. However, they did not deny
that liability and instead promised the informant that they would clear the
said dues. Thus, they caused the informant to safely rely upon them and
continue paying the additional money. Hence, the informant paid them
additional Rs.40,00,000/-. Finally, when the NCLT issued the notice, the
Applicants promised the informant that they will resolve the matter by
25/07/2025. However, they did not and instead, avoided to execute the Sale
Deed or to refund the amount of Rs.1.20 Crores as demanded by the
informant from time to time. If indeed, the Applicants wanted to complete
the subject transaction by executing the Sale Deed, first they would have
cleared the loan amount and the Society maintenance charges using the
same amount of Rs.1.20 Crores received from the informant. Similarly,
when the Applicants expressed their inability to execute the Sale Deed on
account of the notice from NCLT, they could have refunded the amount of
Rs.1.20 Crores. However, neither the Applicants cleared the existing liability
nor refunded that amount. The Applicants have not informed as to where
the said amount has been lying. On query, Mr. Vaswani submitted that the
Applicants have used that amount for other transactions. However, the
nature of the said transactions is not explained by him. As against this, Mr.
Khan, the learned APP, on instructions from the I.O. submitted that out of
Rs.1.20 Crores, some amount has been withdrawn and some has been
diverted to different accounts.


8)        Cheating, as defined under the BNS, revolves around the core idea of


                                                                                    5/8
P.H. Jayani                                            09 ABA3447.2025.doc


deception coupled with dishonest or fraudulent intention, leading a person
to deliver property or act in a manner he otherwise would not have, thereby
causing harm or loss. The element of deception is the very foundation of the
offence of cheating. Deception involves intentionally causing a person to
believe something that is false, either by making a false representation,
concealing material facts, or creating a misleading impression through
words or conduct. It is essential that such deception exists at the very
inception of the transaction and is accompanied by a dishonest or
fraudulent intention. Mere breach of promise or failure to fulfill an
obligation does not amount to cheating unless it is shown that the accused
had the intention to deceive from the beginning. Thus, deception acts as the
starting point that triggers the chain of inducement and resulting damage,
making it a crucial element in establishing the offence of cheating. Making a
false representation is one of the most common forms of deception in the
offence of cheating. It involves knowingly stating something untrue with the
intention to mislead another person.


9)            In Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT of Delhi And Another , reported
in (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court stated the principles which are to
be considered while granting bail and it reads :
              “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on
              the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the
              circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner.
              While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the
              nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support
              thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction
              will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing
              of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
              accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
              the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
              witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
              public or State and similar other considerations. It has also
              to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the
              bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable

                                                                                6/8
P.H. Jayani                                             09 ABA3447.2025.doc


               grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which
               means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only
               satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the
               accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce
               prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not
               excepted, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing
               the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

10)            In the case on hand, from the material on record, it is apparent
that since beginning the Applicants were carrying an intention to cheat the
informant. Otherwise, they would not have suppressed the fact of the
unpaid loan amount and the maintenance charges nor they would have
impressed upon the informant that the tenement was free from such
monetary liability. The Applicants’ said act/omission succeeded in deceiving
the informant and induced him to pay the Applicants Rs.1.20 Crores as the
part consideration. Looking at the said conduct of the Applicants, prima
facie it appears that they knew that if they do not recourse to suppression of
fact and misrepresent to the informant, he would not enter into the
Agreement to Sale and they would not get the desired consideration
amount. Since the Applicants have not satisfactorily explained the use of the
informant’s money, a legitimate inference is permissible that they have
misappropriated the said money. Thus, there is a prima facie case against
the Applicants of having committed the alleged offence. Mr. Shaikh, the
learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the informant has paid
the said amount by selling his own house. Said money must be his lifetime
savings.      Yet, the Applicants have cheated him. The conduct of the
Applicants indicate that they do not want to repay the loan amount which is
the public money. As such, the offence is serious in nature.


11)            Now adverting to the question about necessity of the custodial
interrogation of the Applicants. The evidence as to how the Applicants have
withdrawn/transferred the money received from the informant and where


                                                                                  7/8
                  P.H. Jayani                                             09 ABA3447.2025.doc


                  that money has been presently lying, this mystery can be resolved only by
                  way of the custodial interrogation of the Applicants. Whatever material
                  evidence may be revealed during such interrogation, would certainly
                  strengthen the investigation and help the I.O. in arriving at a logical
                  conclusion. Therefore, grant of bail to the Applicants is likely to hamper the
                  investigation.


                  12)            The Applicants have not disputed that similar 10 crimes have
                  been registered against the Applicant No.2 in the past and Applicant No.1
                  has been involved in some of the said crimes. In those crimes, the
                  Applicants have been released on bail, submits Mr. Vaswani. However, One
                  of the considerations in granting bail is ensuring that the accused is not
                  placed in a position that may lead to the commission of additional offences.
                  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it appears that,
                  the Applicants have no regard to the law and therefore, grant of bail will
                  certainly encourage them to commit additional such crime, which is against
                  the principles of grant of bail.


                  13)            Having thus considered the aforesaid facts of the present case
                  in juxtaposition with the reported cases cited by Mr. Vaswani, I am of the
                  opinion that, no case is made out for grant of the anticipatory bail. As a
                  result, the instant Anticipatory Bail Application is liable to be rejected and it
                  is rejected, accordingly.


                  14)            Consequently, the pending Interim Applications also stand
                  disposed of.


  PREETI
  HEERO
  JAYANI                                                      (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Digitally signed by
PREETI HEERO
JAYANI
Date: 2026.06.09
10:56:53 +0530




                                                                                                      8/8