X: @the_news_21
Pune: Additional Sessions Judge K. P. Kshirsagar has on June 25 rejected Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3458 of 2025 preferred by prominent Developer, Umesh Armugam Pillay (58) apprehending his arrest in CR No. 210 of 2025 registered at the Wanorie Police Station for offences u/s 318 (3), 316, 308, 303(1), 303 & 270 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) for cheating, criminal intimidation, theft, extortion and other serious cognizable offences.
The complaint had been lodged on October 17, 2024 by businessman, Manoj S. Mittal against Pillay with Amitesh Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Pune, who, in turn, forwarded it to the senior PI Wanorie Police Station, Satyajeet Admane, for inquiry. Following nearly 8 months of in-depth investigations, in which statements of several witnesses were recorded, the FIR came to be filed on May 20.
Mittal and Pillay are both partners of the firm ‘Cedrus Assets Association of Partners’. The firm has 29 partners who have, reportedly, collectively contributed over Rs. 85 crores towards purchasing land at Sopan Baug and also constructing a building “Panache”, which has 24 high-end flats costing over Rs. 5 crores each. The Power of Attorney (POA) for the Accused, Umesh A. Pillay is Ankush Mehta, who between them have 50 percent stake in the Firm. Nilesh Bajaj, who is a Wealth Manager, is Power of Attorney for the remaining 27 partners.
The dispute primarily pertains to Flat Nos. 303 and 403 of Panache Building. The agreements of the apartments were executed in favor of Dubai based self-professed block-chain and Crypto ‘Guru’, Sushant Malik and his wife, Ruksher. Pillay had allegedly induced them into investing over Rs. 4 crores in the flats.
But the Sale Deeds of which have not been registered until this date. Sushant Malik lodged a complaint against Umesh Pillay and others with the Wanorie Police Station for cheating and fraud on February 15th. Another apartment, which was reflected upon in the written submissions made on behalf of Mittal, is Flat No. 501 which was purchased by Farhat Husain Qureshi and his wife Dr. Gazala Shabnam Qureshi, the Sale Deed of which also is not registered even until this date. Farhat Husain Qureshi retired in October 2024 as Chief Income-Tax Commissioner, Mumbai.
Umesh Pillay, fearing arrest, filed the Anticipatory Bail Application on May 23, 2025. However, from May 20, when the FIR was registered, it appears that his mobile phones have been switched off and he is unavailable.
Advocate Sudhir Shah, assisted by Adv. Rana Gaurav Tejpal, argued that the consideration amount of Flat No. 303 is already deposited in the account of the Firm and Rs. 2,17,50,000/- of Flat No. 403 was deposited in Pillay’s Account with the consent of Nilesh Bajaj. There was no intention of cheating or misappropriation. Pillay filed an Affidavit on June 11 undertaking to deposit the said amount in the Firm’s account within 10 days.
Advocate Shah contended that all the transactions were within knowledge of all the partners and no criminal antecedents can be attributed to Pillay. Considering the nature of offences and the facts put forward by Advocate Shah, there was no necessity for custodial interrogation and, hence, the Anticipatory Bail Application ought to be allowed.
Advocate Amit Bhowmik representing the informant (Manoj Mittal), and the APP, B. S. Pathale countered that the offences were of a serious nature. The Investigating Officer, Sr. PI Satyajeet Admane was also examined by the Court. He contended that the Accused, Umesh Pillay was not cooperating with the investigations.
In para 4 of the order it was set out that “Ld. APP and Ld. Advocate for the informant argued that, offence is of serious nature. Applicant had disposed of flat no.303 and 403 in violation of the agreement between partners and instead of depositing the consideration amount in the account of partnership firm, deposited said amount in his own account and handed over the possession of the said flats without executing registered agreements of sale.
Moreover, the signature of Nilesh Bajaj on the agreements of the said flats produced by the applicant before this court are forged signatures and Nilesh Bajaj has already lodged a complaint in that regard in the Police Station. The above fact reveals dishonest and fraudulent intention of the applicant to cheat the other partners.
Filing of the forged documents for getting relief amounts to interference in the administration of justice. From the appreciation of the material on record, it appears that the applicant is involved in the present crime and prima-facie case for the offences alleged is made out against the applicant.
The applicant is having criminal antecedents and considering the nature of offence, there is possibility of tampering prosecution evidence. Material information pertaining to the crime is likely to be obtained and the amount involved in the crime is likely to be seized by custodial interrogation.
Material on record reveals involvement of the applicant in the crime. Prima-facie case for the offences alleged is made out. The offences alleged are of serious nature. Therefore, Ld. APP submitted that application be rejected. Investigating officer submitted that investigation pertaining to the complaint of Nilesh Bajaj about fabrication of documents produced in court is pending and admittedly a consideration amount of Rs.2,17,50,000/- is deposited in the account of applicant in violation of the agreement between partners.
The investigation reveals that the applicant, without having any authority, disposed of both the flats and handed over its possession to Sushant Malik and Ruksher Malik without executing any registered document. The amount misappropriated is yet to be recovered and therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. Later on, Ld. Advocate for informant submitted that the informant has no objection to grant bail, if the applicant deposits the amount in the firm account as per undertaking submitted by him in the court.”
The Court, however, held that “prima-facie there appears no substance in the contention of the applicant that all the transactions were within the knowledge of all the partners. From the appreciation of the material on record, it reveals that, applicant fraudulently and dishonestly disposed of the above mentioned flats in violation of the legal contract with intent to cheat the informant and other partners and applicant had concealed the above fact from the informant dishonestly for cheating informant and other partners.
From the prima-facie appreciation of the material on the record, it appears that, applicant had misappropriated a huge amount and it is yet to be recovered. Thus, a prima-facie case for the offences alleged is made out against the applicant. Therefore, from the appreciation of the material on record, there appears to be involvement of the applicant in the present crime.
Today, Ld. Advocate for applicant submitted that, applicant has deposited the amount of Rs.2,17,50,000/- in the firm account and therefore, in view of no objection of informant, application be allowed. As per Section 314 of BNS, a dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of section 314 of BNS.
It is settled law that application for bail is to be decided on merit and not on the basis of settlement between informant and accused out of court. Considering the averments in the FIR and nature of crime and fact that property involved in the crime is yet to be recovered, there appears no substance in the contention of applicant that custodial interrogation is not necessary.
Moreover, there appears substance in the contention of Ld. Advocate for informants, production of forged documents in the court for getting relief amounts to interference in the administration of justice. The allegations of producing forged documents on record by the applicant also increase the severity of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. Moreover, offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant are of grievous nature and severe punishment is provided for the same”. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail Application was rejected.
About the Author: Amit Kumar Bhowmik is an Advocate, High Court from Pune. He can be contacted on Email – amitbhowmik1@gmail.com
