Lawyer booked for cheating 72 people of ₹1.68-cr, pre-arrest bail denied

 

The accused, Saheb Husain Shaikh, a practicing lawyer was allegedly employed with Patil Diligents, a law firm accused of having cheated around 72 people for ₹1.68 crores by offering them houses sealed / attached by banks for non-repayment of loans.

Mumbai The sessions court on Friday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a lawyer booked, along with others, for allegedly cheating 72 people to the tune of ₹1.68 crore under the pretext of helping them get homes that were attached by banks at low prices.

The accused, Saheb Husain Shaikh, a practicing lawyer was allegedly employed with Patil Diligents, a law firm accused of having cheated around 72 people for ₹1.68 crores by offering them houses sealed / attached by banks for non-repayment of loans.

It was alleged that all accused who worked at the firm had created a fake identity while Shaikh identified himself as one advocate Prashant Bansal.

In his defence, Shaikh contended that he had never visited the said firm.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that identity of Bansal had remained a mystery for them hence the charge sheet in the case was filed showing Bansal as one of the absconders.

Meanwhile, the police claimed that the investigating officer came across a photograph where all the staff of the firm were present. Through the photograph, police succeeded in establishing the identity of the mysterious advocate Bansal.

The investigation revealed that the said Adv. Prashant Bansal was a non-existent person and someone had identified himself as advocate Prashant Basal to others.

Rejecting Shaikh’s anticipatory bail plea, the court observed that, “In Mumbai, people are in ardent need of ownership room/house. Such people get immediately attracted to the schemes like the scheme involved in this crime. On behalf of the said company assurances were given that bank seized properties are available for sale.

“Believing such pretence, people went on investing with the main accused and his office. It is pertinent to note that the staff employed in the office were also given fake identity cards with fake names. Even they were directed to introduce themselves with clients with their fake names and fake IDs,” said the court.