The Bombay High Court has denied the anticipatory bail application of Raees Husain Sayed, a businessman accused of duping an informant out of ₹40 lakhs under the pretense of selling a flat. The case was registered at the Amboli Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background
According to the prosecution, in March 2019, Sayed allegedly offered to sell flat No. 131 in the Oshiwara Sadipani Teachers Cooperative Housing Society, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai, to the informant for a total price of ₹50 lakhs. The deal was finalized with the informant making an initial payment of ₹25 lakhs through cheque and ₹15 lakhs in cash, totaling ₹40 lakhs. Sayed acknowledged receipt of the payment on stamp paper in the presence of two witnesses. It was agreed that the remaining ₹10 lakhs would be paid upon possession of the flat.
However, by December 2019, when the informant sought possession of the flat, Sayed allegedly gave evasive responses and left town. Further investigation revealed that the flat had been mortgaged to L&T Finance Company, and Sayed had failed to return the money or provide possession of the flat.
Defense’s Argument
The defense argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the FIR had been filed with malicious intent. They pointed out that the deal took place in 2019, while the complaint was filed in 2021, and the FIR registered in 2022, indicating a significant delay in the registration of the crime. The defense asserted that Sayed had been falsely implicated and was willing to cooperate with the investigation.
Prosecution’s Stand
The prosecution contended that Sayed had deceived the informant by accepting a substantial payment and failing to deliver possession of the flat or return the funds. Furthermore, Sayed did not disclose that the flat was already mortgaged at the time of the transaction, indicating that he intended to cheat the informant from the outset. The prosecution also noted that Sayed had been absconding since 2019 and only approached the court for anticipatory bail in 2024, raising concerns about his willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
Court’s Observations
Upon reviewing the records, the court found that the allegations against Sayed centered on misappropriation of funds and failure to deliver possession of the flat. The court observed that Sayed received a payment of ₹40 lakhs from the informant and acknowledged the transaction on stamp paper, yet did not disclose the fact that the flat was mortgaged. This omission, combined with the fact that Sayed left town and remained unavailable for investigation since 2019, suggested a deliberate intent to cheat.
The court also noted that additional victims had come forward with similar complaints, further implicating Sayed in fraudulent activities. Given the seriousness of the offense and the applicant’s evasiveness, the court found no merit in the applicant’s claim of non-involvement.
Decision
In light of these findings, the court ruled that there was no justification for granting anticipatory bail to Raees Husain Sayed. The court held that the case involved serious allegations of fraud and cheating, and the applicant’s custodial interrogation was necessary for the ongoing investigation. As a result, the court rejected Sayed’s application for anticipatory bail.
Leave a Reply