The Bombay high court (HC) recently confirmed the October 29 bail order of an advocate and solicitor who was accused of being a part of a conspiracy in which a man and his son were purportedly duped of ₹7.26 crore in exchange for a plot at Lonavla.
The advocate, who was involved in preparing the documents of the deal for the main accused, was allowed the bail on the grounds that he was only extending services to his client based on the facts placed before him, and had no role to play in the actual fraud.
In an earlier hearing in October, the bench of justice Bharati Dangre, while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of advocate Vinod Mistry, was informed that in 2013 a man and his son had decided to buy the Lonavla plot, for which they paid varying amounts to persons who pretended to be owners as well as the tenants (including an NGO) of the plot. The accused had promised that they would relinquish their rights on receiving the payment. As each payment was followed up with memorandum of understanding (MoUs) and agreement deeds made by Mistry on behalf of the recipients, the man and his son did not find anything amiss. The complainants paid ₹7.26 crore till 2015. However, the deal remained pending after that, 2015. Later, they discovered that the land belonged to the government, and the persons who they had paid the amount were tenants.
In 2019, they asked the recipients to return the amount. But when they did not get the amount back, they lodged a complaint four months ago against the recipients and arraigned Mistry as a conspirator.
The counsel for Mistry informed the bench that he was a practicing advocate and had earned a reputation over 50 years of practice. The bench was informed that Mistry had simply offered services sought from him and that he had no role to play in the conspiracy. The bench was assured that Mistry would cooperate with the police and hence he should be granted anticipatory bail.
On November 27, when the matter was heard, additional public prosecutor MM Deshmukh informed the court that Mistry had reported to the police station whenever he was called for investigations and there was nothing left to extract from him.
After hearing the submissions the bench observed, “In such circumstances, as nothing further is required to be extracted from the present applicant, in my considered opinion, the order dated 29th October 2020 requires a confirmation subject to the same stipulations. However, it is expected that the applicant will co-operate with the investigation and report to the investigating officer as and when called for.”
