Court Denies Bail to Man Accused of Duping Couple of ₹6 Lakh

A Sessions Court in Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Irfan Sayed, a 52-year-old man accused of duping a couple of ₹6 lakh by falsely claiming connections with the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The incident, which took place in 2021, involved Sayed allegedly promising to secure a house for the couple under the VIP quota.

Court’s Decision

Additional Sessions Judge SN Patil declined Sayed’s bail, citing the serious nature of the offense and his significant role in the alleged crime. “Considering the nature of the offence, the role played by the applicant/accused in the commission of the alleged crime, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which discretion can be exercised in favour of applicant/accused. Hence, I have declined to release him on bail,” the judge stated.

Case Background

On November 2, 2011, Irfan Sayed contacted Mohammed Kazi, who was seeking to purchase a house in his wife’s name. Sayed assured Kazi that he had influential contacts within MHADA and could secure a one-room house at a favorable rate. He initially demanded a total sum of ₹35 lakh, to which Kazi agreed after some negotiation. Kazi paid ₹9 lakh upfront, after which Sayed provided a purported allotment letter.

Sayed later requested two demand drafts totaling ₹19,94,900 for registration charges. However, upon presenting these at the MHADA office, Kazi was informed that the allotment letter was forged and no such letter had been issued by the authority. Despite Kazi’s persistent efforts, Sayed returned only ₹3.65 lakh, withholding the remaining amount.

Legal Proceedings

Following the discovery of the forgery, Kazi lodged an FIR at Nehru Nagar Police Station. Sayed faces charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including:

• Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
• Section 465: Punishment for forgery
• Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
• Section 468: Forgery for the purpose of cheating
• Section 471: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record
• Section 406: Punishment for criminal breach of trust

Bail Hearing

During the bail hearing, Sayed argued that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and was suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes. However, the prosecution opposed the bail, emphasizing Sayed’s criminal antecedents, the ongoing investigation, and the fact that the full amount was still unrecovered.

Implications

The court’s decision to deny bail underscores the judiciary’s strict stance on financial fraud and the importance of thorough investigation before granting bail in cases involving significant economic offenses. This case also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to protecting victims of financial scams and ensuring justice is served.

For comprehensive coverage of legal developments, business news, and real-time updates on law and politics, visit Kanishk Social Media. If you found this news article informative, please share it with a friend!