MUMBAI: The Mumbai Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to builder Sumit Jain in connection with an alleged fraud case involving the Lalbaug Redevelopment Project, citing it as a civil dispute.
Special Judge VD Kedar approved bail for Jain, 46, a major partner in Poonam Infra, in response to an FIR filed by a beautician at the DB Marg Police Station. This case relates to two flats on the 21st floor that she and her husband booked in 2011 for Rs 1.7 crore.
The allegations indicate that Jain and his firm persuaded the complainant to invest in flats in the Poonam Pinaki project at Lalbaug, receiving Rs 1.40 crore, which includes Rs 95 lakh via bank transfers and an alleged Rs 45 lakh in cash, without a registered agreement or refunds.
Jain’s attorney, Satyam Nimalkar, argued that this matter is a civil dispute mischaracterized as a criminal issue.
In contrast, prosecutor Siroya and the informant’s lawyer, AK Singh, contended that this is not a mere property dispute but a significant economic offense, alleging that Jain abused trust, misappropriated funds, and has a history of similar complaints from various flat purchasers. The informant maintained that Jain is “a habitual offender who has defrauded multiple flat buyers to the extent of over Rs 200 crores,” as recorded in the court ruling.
Nimalkar countered that delays and actions from a partner led to the project being stalled, ultimately resulting in its takeover by MHADA. He stated that MHADA had invited claims from buyers, but the informant did not seek redress from them. Furthermore, he claimed that due to various civil and criminal disputes between Jain’s firm and M/s R.B. Builders, the project could not be completed, arguing that there was no initial dishonest intent.
The court noted, “Based on the available material, it appears that the project could not be completed due to disputes between the applicant’s firm and M/s R.B. Builders.”
“From the evidence presented, it seems the dispute is primarily civil in nature. The mere existence of other criminal cases against the applicant does not preclude him from seeking relief, especially since he has been granted bail in those matters and has established a prima facie case here,” the court concluded.
The court also pointed out that the FIR was registered in February 2026 with no satisfactory reason provided for the delay in reporting.
As Jain has been on interim relief since April 9 without breaching any pre-arrest bail conditions, the court upheld his anticipatory bail.
