MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has admonished a developer for approaching it while his anticipatory bail application was still under consideration at the Dindoshi Sessions Court, emphasizing that he should seek relief from the appropriate forum first.
The court instructed the accused to promptly withdraw his anticipatory bail petition from the High Court and to pursue options available in the Sessions Court.
Justice N.R. Borkar was hearing the bail plea from Housecon developer Mansukh Shah, who, along with his son Akash Shah, has been charged by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). They allegedly induced a businessman to invest ₹5.15 crore in a redevelopment project by promising high returns via a memorandum of understanding (MoU) and falsely claimed development rights over a property in Malad, ultimately failing to fulfill their contractual obligations.
The complainant, investor Nilesh Raghani, represented by advocates Abad Ponda and Suvarna Vast, strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that granting relief while their plea was pending before the Sessions Court would set a harmful precedent. Following the court’s remarks, the accused withdrew their application.
The case stems from a cheating FIR initially registered at the Kasturba Marg Police Station against Shah Housecon, later transferred to the EOW for further investigation.
According to the FIR, Raghani, the Director of Classic Treasure Pvt. Ltd., was introduced to Mansukh and Akash Shah in March 2025 concerning an SRA redevelopment project at Khot Dongri Cooperative Housing Society. MoUs and supplementary terms were executed, stipulating the development of a 5,600 sq metre plot with a sale component of 4.5 lakh sq ft.
Raghani accused Shah Housecon of failing to undertake essential redevelopment activities such as evicting occupants, establishing ownership, and coordinating with stakeholders. He also claimed that the development rights over the land were misrepresented, as ownership was supposedly vested in a charitable trust.
Raghani further alleged that the accused entered into parallel agreements with other developers for the same plot, gathered significant sums from them, and later demanded an additional ₹25 crore, issuing threats and termination notices when the demand was rejected.
