Back to Mumbai

Thane Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Mira Road MHADA Flat Fraud Case

Thane Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Mira Road MHADA Flat Fraud Case

The Thane Sessions Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Latif Shantvan Rajguru, who is accused of cheating a man of Rs 8.5 lakh by falsely promising him a flat in a MHADA project located in the Shantinagar area of Mira Road (East).

Additional Sessions Judge B.D. Shelke passed the order on August 28, 2026, observing that there was prima facie evidence showing Rajguru's involvement in a serious economic offence and the fabrication of documents. The court held that his personal interrogation was necessary for the investigation.

According to the prosecution, the alleged fraud took place between January 2023 and February 3, 2023. Rajguru and two other accused allegedly induced the complainant to pay Rs 8.5 lakh for a flat in the MHADA project. The accused provided forged documents carrying signatures of various officials, including an Assistant Commissioner. However, the complainant was neither given the flat nor refunded the money, leading to a First Information Report being registered at the Nayanagar police station.

Rajguru's defence counsel argued that he had been falsely implicated simply due to his friendship with co-accused Abdul Sattar. The defence claimed that Rs 2 lakh deposited into Rajguru's bank account was done at Sattar's instruction, and that Rajguru immediately withdrew the money and handed it over to Sattar without being a beneficiary. The defence also maintained that Rajguru had cooperated with the police investigation.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that Rs 2 lakh had been credited directly to Rajguru's account and pointing to multiple past criminal cases registered against him involving cheating and forgery.

The court also observed that Rajguru had declared his criminal record as "nil" in his affidavit despite facing several past cases. Taking note of the suppression of facts and the gravity of the charges, the court ruled that the case was unfit for granting anticipatory bail.

Share

Related Stories