Bombay High Court cites prima facie evidence of cheating, mortgage concealment, and alleged forgery of RERA certificates against builder Mohd Chand Hanif Shaikh
In a significant ruling that brings relief to 36 flat purchasers allegedly duped by a city-based developer, the Bombay High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of builder Mohd Chand Hanif Shaikh. The applicant, who is the developer of the ‘Dream Tower’ project, was apprehending arrest in connection with a case involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, and violations of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act.
The order, passed by Justice N.R. Borkar on February 17, 2026, comes as a major setback to the builder who sought pre-arrest protection in Crime No. 376 of 2023 registered at the Nalasopara Police Station.
The Allegations
The case against Shaikh, the sole applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3101 of 2025, involves serious allegations of fraudulent transactions concerning flats in the ‘Dream Tower’ project. According to the First Information Report, the first informant was among 36 individuals who had booked flats in the project developed by Shaikh.
The prosecution’s case, as detailed in the court records, paints a picture of systematic deception. It is alleged that six of the flats sold to aggrieved purchasers were mortgaged with a bank against loans availed by the developer. Crucially, this encumbrance was not disclosed to the buyers at the time of sale.
In what the court described as a prima facie case of cheating, the prosecution alleged a double sale of properties. “It is alleged that after execution of agreement with the said six aggrieved flat purchasers, he sold the said flats to third parties,” the order noted. Furthermore, even in cases where flat purchasers had paid the entire consideration amount, the developer allegedly refused to hand over possession. Instead, he purportedly inducted licensees into those flats after accepting heavy deposits, effectively denying the original allottees their rightful property.
Arguments Before the Bombay High Court
During the hearing, the applicant was represented by advocates Mr. Anand Pandey and Mr. Deepak Thakur, while APP S. R. Agarkar appeared for the respondent-State, and Advocate Aditya R. Mokashi represented the first informant.
The defense counsel argued that the flat purchasers had originally dealt with a co-accused, Chandrakant Patel, who was merely an investor in the project. It was contended that the purchasers had not paid the entire consideration, justifying the developer’s refusal to hand over possession. The defense further submitted that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that custodial interrogation of the applicant was unnecessary. The applicant had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
The State and the first informant’s counsel strongly opposed the bail plea, pointing to grave irregularities. They highlighted that after initial transactions with the co-accused, the present applicant had himself executed fresh agreements in favor of the aggrieved flat purchasers. In a startling revelation, it was also submitted that the applicant had allegedly prepared a forged certificate of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority regarding the extension of registration of the project. Given the nature and gravity of the crime, they argued that anticipatory bail would be inappropriate.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning
Justice Borkar, after hearing both sides, made critical observations that weighed heavily against the applicant. The court noted a key undisputed fact: “The learned counsel for the applicant has not disputed the execution of agreements of sale by the applicant in favour of all 36 aggrieved flat purchasers.”
The bench also highlighted the specific modus operandi alleged against the developer. “The fact that flat sold to six aggrieved flat purchasers were mortgaged with the bank against the loan availed by the applicant is also not disputed. It appears that said fact of mortgage was not disclosed to the said six flats purchasers,” the order stated.
The court further took cognizance of the sequence of events involving the six specific flats. “It further appears that after execution of agreement of sale in favour of said six flat purchasers, the applicant had sold the said six flats to third parties.” The bench also noted the grievance regarding the induction of licensees despite full payment by some purchasers.
The Verdict
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the court found it an unfit case for the grant of pre-arrest bail.
“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The application is rejected,” the order pronounced.
Following the rejection, the applicant’s counsel sought protection from arrest for a period of two weeks to allow him to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the court declined this request as well, stating, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the request is rejected.”
With this order, the interim application filed in the matter was also disposed of. The decision clears the path for the investigating agency to take coercive steps against the developer, ensuring that the probe into the alleged multi-crore real estate fraud can proceed without hindrance. The case highlights the judiciary’s stringent approach in matters involving financial wrongdoing and cheating of home buyers, particularly where allegations of forgery of statutory documents exist.
- Mr. Anand Pandey a/w Mr. Deepak Thakur – Advocates for the Applicant (Mohd Chand Hanif Shaikh)
- Mr. S. R. Agarkar – APP (Additional Public Prosecutor) for the Respondent/State of Maharashtra
- Adv. Aditya R. Mokashi – Advocate for Respondent No. 2 (the first informant)
Read more:-
