IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER

BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. : OF 2016.
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. : 1643 OF 2016.
(C.R No. : 21/2016)

Mrs. Kesar Lalji ]

An Woman Senior Citizen, ]
Age : 63 yrs, Occ. : Housewife ]
R/o : D-4, Pannalal Terrace, ]
Lamington Road, Grant Road (East), ]
Mumbai- 400 007. ]………..Intervener/
(Original

Complainant)

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Mr. Manish Harjivandas Shah ]

Age : 65 Years, Occ. : Retired, ]
R/o : B-38, 2nd Floor, Pannalal Terrace, ]
Grant Road(East), Mumbai- 400 007. ] ........Applicant
(Org. Accused)
Versus

State of Maharashtra ]
(Through the Senior Inspector of Police, ]
D. B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. ]
…..Respondent

APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION

BY THE VICTIM / ORIGINAL

COMPLAINANT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

It is most respectfully submitted that the Intervener is a

victim of offences committed by the accused/applicant

applying for bail before this Hon’ble Court. The Accused is

a habitual offender and has cheated the Intervener in the

tune of Rs. 30 lacs and colluded with his daughter who is

also accused in this matter has duped many other people

also in the ditto same modus operandi in the tune of 5.32

crores. The Intervener has observed that the Accused is in

habits of suppressing the material facts and thereby

attempted to misguide and influence the Hon’ble Courts to

get bail, every time the Org. Complainant put the correct

truth before the Hon’ble Courts which the lords

appreciated and therefore every time the ABA /BA of the

Accused is rejected. Therefore in the interest of justice, it

is very necessary that the material facts which are crucial

for deciding the present application of bail of the Accused,

be placed before this Hon’ble Court also, hence this

present Intervention Application.

1. That the intervener is the original complainant /victim

of the offences u/s 406,420 r/w 34 IPC committed by

the Accused colluded with his daughter, who is

another accused in this present CR No. 21/2016.

2. The Org. Complainant states that the Advocate

appearing for the Accused have wrongly submitted

that the Org. Complainant had given a total of Rs. 30

lacs to the accused persons as loan. The fact is that

the applicant in the pretext of flat allotment in their

redevelopment project of Shah Sadan 1 & 2, Shivsena

Bhavan, Dadar(W) induced the Org. Complainant to

deliver them Rs. 30 lacs and in the same pretext and

manner also induced the other relatives of the Org.

Complainant namely Ms. Babusha Champshi Shah

and Chimanlal Gala to deliver them Rs. 1.40 crore

and Rs. 25 Lacs respectively. It is the material fact

that apart from present FIR, there are 3 more FIR is

registered against the accused persons. All the FIR

are for the same nature of crime which is cheating.

Details of another FIRs against the accused persons

are as :-

i) FIR No. : 295/2015 registered with D B Marg

Police Station, Mumbai, U/s 406, 420, 465, 467,

468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. for cheating of Rs. 1.52

crore and forgery.

ii) FIR No. : 419/2015 registered with MRA Marg

Police Station, Mumbai, U/s 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC

for cheating of Rs. 25 lacs.

iii) FIR No. : 323/2015 registered with Crime

branch, Hyderabad Police U/s 406, 420, 494 r/w

34 IPC for cheating of Rs. 3 crore.

Copy of all the above FIRs are annexed herewith and

marked as Exhibit-A (colly), which clearly reveals

the criminal antecedents. Therefore it is very clear

that the Applicant has suppressed the criminal

antecedents of the accused, and thereby has

attempted to misguided this Hon’ble court to get

favourable order.

The crux of present CR : 21/2016 and FIR No. :

295/15 registered with D B Marg ; FIR No. : 419/15

registered with MRA Marg, are ditto same and it is

the modus operandi of the Accused. On perusal of the

these FIRs it reveals that the Accused persons have a

modus operandi to induce people by showing of their

fake and bogus financial status that Accused No. 1 is

vice president in Appeejay Group’s Park Hotel earning

Rs. 15 Lacs per month ; falsely claiming that

Accused No. 1 & 2 are the owners of bldg. namely :

Shah Sadan 1 & 2, near Shiv Sena Bhavan, dadar ;

inducing and trapping people offering flats at cheap

rates ; and in the pretext of allotting them cheap flats

taking money and to show their bonafides and to

create trust over the victims :- executing interest free

 loan agreement, issuing cheques and later issuing

bogus and forged allotment letter and finally grab the

entire money.

3. The Org. Complainant submits that the Accused

persons were asking for further money to deliver the

allotment letter to the present victim (the Org.

Complainant) and one another victim Mr. Chiman

Gala (FIR No. 419/2015 MRA Marg Police Stn) but by

the time the racket is burst by the DB Marg Police

and the present victim survived from paying the

Accused persons further money for delivery of forged

allotment letter of flats in her name. However the

niece of present victim namely Ms. Babusha Shah

was not lucky to survive and is duped in the tune of

Rs. 1.52 crore by the Accused and got delivered

forged allotment letter by the Accused persons.

4. In another CR : 295/15 which is registered against the

same accused persons by other victim (niece of

present victim

) with D B Marg Police, wherein fact of the crime is

ditto same, the accused went up to Supreme Court to

obtain anticipatory bail, but the Supreme Court in SLP

(Cr) No. : 199/2016, asked to deposit the entire

amount either in the court or to the victim directly for

the consideration for their SLP (Cr) No. : 199/2016, as

 they accused were admitted their liability before

Hon’ble Bombay High Court, while deciding their ABA

No. 1818/2015, the accused bought time and never

paid the money, so the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

as well as Supreme Court also rejected the bail

application of the Accused persons. It is pertinent to

mention here that Hon’ble Bombay High Court had

rejected the ABA No : 1818/2015 of the accused on

the similar reason that they accused admitted their

liability, sought time to pay/ deposit, held mediation

with the victim and later refused to pay to the victim/

deposit to the court. Herein annexed and marked as

Exhibit- B (colly) is the copy of order of Hon’ble

Supreme Court and Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

Relevance of these orders are to show that the

Accused have been also in habits of buying time to

pay money and later after prolonging the issue,

finally refused. In the present CR also the accused did

the same before the trail court during the hearing of

their bail application, which is on record in para no.

14 of the MM 18th Court, Girgaum, order dated

04/07/2016 (Exhibit-C).

5. In the present case also the Accused admitted the

liability during the hearing of Bail Application in CC

No. : 1745/2016 in present C.R : 21/2016 before the

trial court (MM 18TH COURT, GIRGAUM) and accused

 submitted to the trial court that accused is ready to

repay the cheated amount to the victim, however

later have not taken any step and did not pay to the

accused, therefore the Bail Application of the present

accused was rejected vide order dated 04/07/2016 by

the Ld. MM Court. Paragraph No. 16 (Exhibit-C) of

the said order of trail court dated 04/07/2016 is

clearly showing this fact. Herein annexed and marked

as Exhibit-C is the copy of order dated 04/07/2016

passed by the trail court in the present CR (CC No. :

1745/2016).

6. The Accused person has sought the Bail mainly on

the ground that the matter is of civil nature and that

he is senior citizen and is suffering from some

disease. The Org. Complainant states that the

Accused are the habitual offenders and as of the

knowledge of the Org. Complainant there are 3 FIR

are registered and two are pending investigations.

There are many people who have not come to the

Police. The Accused has been committing the crime

in a very systematic manner, which is also observed

by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its order dated

05/12/2015 while rejecting ABA No. : 1818/2015 [Ex-

B (colly)]. The offences are of very serious nature

and till knowledge the Accused has cheated a

total sum of Approx Rs. 5.32 crores from the 5

victims (present FIR No. 21/2016 DB Marg Rs.

30 Lacs + FIR No. : 295/2015 DB Marg Rs. 1.52

Crore + FIR No. 419/2015 MRA Marg Rs. 25 Lacs

+ FIR No. 323/2015 Hyderbad Police Rs. 3

Crore, pending complaint of Aruna Shah at DB

Marg Rs. 25 Lacs). The Accused have kept the ditto

same pleadings before Mumbai Sessions Court,

Bombay High Court, Supreme Court while deciding

their ABA, and SLP as well as regular bail application

before MM 18th Court, Girgaum, and also before

Hon’ble Sessions Court, Mumbai. All the Hon’ble

Court have rejected their pleadings and theory of

loan/civil transactions and rejected the ABA/SLP/BA.

Therefore this Hon’ble also be please to uphold the

observations of criminality in the matter by the other

Hon’ble Courts.

The Org, Complainant further submits that the

Accused never disclosed his illness/ disease before

Sessions Court, High Court, Supreme Court in their

ABA / SLP. Even whenever he was taken for medical

check ups in PCR (Police Custody) no health issue/

disease is reported by the Govt. Hospitals. The

Accused has no history of any such disease.

Moreover he is undertrial therefore it is not necessary

that he (Accused) would be made to stand

continuously in the Jail. Therefore the apprehension

 that his legs may be swollen if he stands for too long

does not hold ground.

7. The Original Complainant strongly opposes the

present bail application and prays to this Hon’ble

Court be please to reject/dismiss the same and

therefore begs to raise the following objections for

the rejection of the present bail application filed by

the Original Accused on the following grounds, which

are taken without prejudice to each other, as well as

alternatively.

GROUNDS

a. The Accused is habitual offender and has been

committing the crime in a very systemic way which

is also observed by the Hon’ble Bombay High

Court, while rejecting accused bail application ABA

No. : 1818/2015 in para 4 of the order dated

05/12/2015 (Exhibit-B).

b. Bail is rule and Jail is exception is not

applicable in case of habitual offender.

 Modifying the “bail is rule, jail exception”

view, the Supreme Court has held history-

sheeter or habitual offenders to a nuisance

and terror to society and asked courts to be

cautious in granting bail to such individual

who are not at par with the first time

offender. If the Accused is enlarged on Bail being

habitual offender they may dupe and cheat other

people also. The Hon’ble Supreme Court (Hon’ble

Justice Dipak Misra, J) has also set the ratio in

reportable judgement in Neeru Yadav V/s State

of U.P & Anrs Cr. Appeal 1272/2015 [Cr. SLP

No. 1596/2015] that “Criminal Antecedents of

Accused should not be ignored and a

habitual criminal should denied bail”.

c. Para 12 and Para 14 of the Order dated 04/07/2016

passed by the trail court while rejecting bail of the

accused (Exhibit-C), which is appealed before this

Hon’ble Court by the accused by the present bail

application, clearly shows that trail is started

and the trail court has expedite the trail

considering the original complainant as

woman senior citizen and under

apprehension to tempering with the

witnesses by the accused.

d. Hon’ble trial court has observed that “As of now

the charge sheet being filed, it can not be said that

accused person can temper the documentary

evidence but tempering with the witness and

fleeing away from trail can not be ruled out

when huge money is involved . Hence I do not

find any reason to grant bail………” (para 15 of

Exhibit-C). This Hon’ble Court be please to uphold

the observation of Ld. Trail court in this matter.

e. The Accused persons has been absconding since

more than 10 months with their entire family and

the MM 18th Court, Girga12um was pleased to issue

NBW and thereafter Proclamation against these

Accused, therefore it is apprehended that if the

Accused person enlarged on Bail she will once

again escape from the trial.

f. The Accused surrendered before the 18th MM

Court, Girgaum only when the standing NBW was

issued and Proclamation Order was published. The

conduct of Accused clearly shows that they have

no intention to face the trial, they surrendered just

to save their property from the attachment which

might have attached failing appearance on

 Proclamation. Herein annexed as Ex-D_is the copy

of Proclamation Order.

g. No body has not been residing at the address

claiming by the Accused as their permanent

residence since 10 months and is still locked. It

may be understood that the Accused is in jail since

4 months but what about before that and what

about other family members of the Accused ??.

The police report on the NBW and later on

Proclamation clearly shows that the claimed

permanent address of the Accused is locked

since 10 months, which also supports the facts

that the Accused has sold/transferred/is in process

of transfer the said claimed permanent residential

house of one Mr. Deepak Shah and Accused

alongwith entire family is well planning to flee from

the TRIAL.

h. The Accused persons have been through their

henchman threatening to the witnesses of this

case, therefore if the Accused are enlarged on Bail

they will definitely temper with the evidences as

well as the witnesses. The Org. Complainant as

well as the other victims are also apprehending life

threats. Herein annexed Ex-E (colly) are the copy

of NCs filed by the witnesses of this case.

i. It has come to the notice of the Intervener that the

Accused has sold/transferred the house of B-38, 2 nd

Floor, Pannalal Terrace, Grant Road(E), Mumbai, to

one Mr. Deepak Shah. And therefore the claim of

Accused that they are permanently residing at

their permanent address and so they will not flee

from the TRIAL, is false, bogus and fake and can

not be relied upon. The fact is that none of the

family member of the Accused is residing at their

claimed permanent residence since registration of

FIR. This fact may be verified by Police Verification.

Therefore if the Accused are enlarged on bail, it is

most likely to happen that they will once again run

away and the Trial will be frustrated.

j. The Intervener further states that the Accused

persons are their neighbours resident of same

building where the Intervener resides, therefore

the Intervener apprehends grievous hurt and

serious threat to her life as threatened by the

Accused. Therefore the Intervener prays to this

Hon’ble Court be please to reject the present Bail

Application of the Accused for the sake of

Intervener’s safety also.

k. The Accused have not given the recovery of the

property cheated rather misguided the IO by

different different stories.

l. The I.O has started further investigation in this

case and therefore has issued Notice to one Mr.

Dinesh Pandey, who is son in law of the present

accused as some amount has been traced to his

sister’s bank account. This further investigation

may be tempered by the Accused.

m. The Org. Complainant is a senior citizen and

illiterate lady.

n. The accused are influential people are capable of

tempering with the witness/ evidences. Therefore

in circumstance of the case and factual position, it

shall be unjust to grant the Accused protection.

o. The Applicant in his bail application sought the bail

on the principal ground that the case is of civil

nature and no criminal ingredients etc. The

Original Complainant states that the accused who

has broken all the morality of relationship and has

tarnished the same, by defrauding, cheating and

thereby duping complainant who used to treat

 them as her own, cannot be granted bail just to

defraud many other people also misusing the

liberty. It shall be gross abuse of law and mockery

of judiciary system.

p. I say that I have made out a very strong case for

rejection of bail application of the Accused and the

charges against the Accused are very grave and of

very serious in nature therefore it is just and

necessary in the interest of justice, to reject the

bail application of the Accused.

8. The Intervener craves leave to add to, alter, amend,

rescind, vary and modify any of the foregoing

paragraphs, if necessary with the permission of the

Hon’ble Court.

9. The Intervener has not filed any other application on

the same issues reliefs either before this Hon’ble

Court or Bombay High Court or before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

10. I say that I have made out a very strong case for

rejection of bail application of the Accused and the

charges against the Accused are very grave and of

very serious in nature therefore it is just and

 necessary in the interest of justice, to reject the

bail application of the Accused.

It is therefore humbly prayed that :-

a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the

Intervener to intervene in this matter,

b) That this Hon’ble Court be please to reject the Bail

Application No. : 1643/2016 of the Applicant (Org.

Accused).

c) That this Hon’ble court be pleased to grant such

other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE

INTERVENER SHALL EVER PRAY AS DUTY BOUND.

Mumbai this 11TH day of August, 2016.

Advocate for Intervener

Jiten N. Bhardwaj Intervener/

Org. (Advocate)

Complainant
 V E R I F I C A T I O N.

I, Kesar Lalji Shah, an adult senior citizen, Indian

Inhabitant of Mumbai, having address : D-4, Pannalal

Terrace, Lamington Road, Grant Road (East), Mumbai- 400

007, the Original Complainant above-named, do hereby

solemnly declare that whatever has been stated

hereinabove is true and correct with the best of my

knowledge and information, which I hold to be true.

Solemnly affirmed as aforesaid, )

By the within named, Declarant, )

Kesar Lalji Shah )

(Org. Complainant)

On this 11th day of August, 2016. )

Before me :-

Jiten N. Bhardwaj
Advocate for Intervener

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR

GRAETER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
 Criminal Application No. : Of
2016.
In
Bail Appl. No.: 1643 of 2016

Mr. Manish H. Shah

……. Applicant.
Versus

State of Maharashtra.
(D. B. Marg Police Station)
……Respondent.

Mrs. Kesar Lalji Shah

……..
Intervener

CR. APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION

BY THE VICTIM /ORG. COMPLAINANT

Dated, this 11th day of August, 2016.

Mr. Jiten N. Bhardwaj,

Advocates for Intervener/Original
Complainant
Office Address :-
A-203, 2nd Floor, A-Wing,
Aviskar Apartment, Sleater
Road,
Grant Road (W), Mumbai- 400
007.
Tel : 98924 43836.
Email:[Link]@[Link]
m

=================
I am not a member of Advocate’s Welfare Fund, hence Rs. 2/- Stamp is not affixed

Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GRAETER
BOMBAY AT MUMBAI

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. : OF 2016.

IN

BAIL APPLICATION NO. : 1643 OF 2016.

Mrs. Kesar Lalji Shah ]

Age : about 63 yrs, Occ. : Housewife ]
R/o : D-4, Pannalal Terrace, ]
Lamington Road, Grant Road (East), ]
Mumbai- 400 007. ]
………..Intervener/
(Org.

Complainant)

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Mr. Manish Harjivandas Shah ]

Age : 65 Years, Occ. : Retired, ]
R/o : B-38, 2nd Floor, Pannalal Terrace, ]
Grant Road(East), Mumbai-400 007.
]........Applicant
(Org. Accused)

Versus

State of Maharashtra ]
(Through the Senior Inspector of Police, ]
D. B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. ]
…..Respondent
 VAKALATNAMA

To
The Registrar,
Mumbai Sessions Court,
Mumbai

Sir/Madam,

I, Kesar Lalji Shah, the Original Complainant/ Intervener in

the above captioned matter do hereby appoint Mr. Jiten N.
Bhardwaj, Advocate High Court Bombay, to act, appear
and plead for me and on my behalf in the above matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have put my signature on this

11th day of August, 2016 at Mumbai.

…………….
……………………
(Kesar Lalji Shah)
Intervener/Org.
Complainant

ACCEPTED BY ME.

Jiten N. Bhardwaj
Advocate, High Court Bombay,
A-203, Aviskar Apartment,
Sleater Road, Grant Road(West),
Mumbai-400 007.
Mobile : 09892443836. 022-24370713.
Email : [Link]@[Link]
=======================