No ABA for constable who tried to sell Nizam's land

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has rejected the anticipatory bail application (ABA) of a Maharashtra police constable in an alleged case of cheating a man on pretext of selling land belonging to Nizam of Hyderabad.

The land deal was struck at Rs 350 crore and the accused had allegedly received more than Rs 5 crore as token amount but failed to hand over the land to the purchaser following which a complaint was registered against the accused at Vashi police station in Navi Mumbai.

The prosecution case is that the police registered FIR against Deodatta More, a police constable, after receiving a complaint from Rajkumar Agarwal.

It was alleged in the complaint that More along with Avinash Deshmukh and Sachin Shevale introduced themselves as partners of a company involved in real estate business.

The accused told the complainant that there was a land situated in village Wahal in district Raigad was available for sale. The accused claimed that said land was owned by the legal heirs of Nizam of Hyderabad and the owners wanted to sell said land through company of accused.

Mr Agarwal was informed that there were about 21 legal heirs and their names have been entered into the 7/12 extract of revenue record. The complainant agreed to purchase the land and from time to time paid a sum of Rs 5 crore 1 lakh to the accused.

However, the accused neither handed over the possession of the property nor they returned the amount accepted by them. The accused, as a security, had pledged to give a residential plot of land of about 60 acres in Kondhwa Khurd in Pune to Agarwal but he came to know later that the Anti-Corruption Bureau had already attached said land.

More’s lawyer had denied the allegations and claimed that the names mentioned in the documents were real legal heirs of Nizam of Hyderabad. He claimed that complainant failed to comply with his part of obligation and therefore the transaction of sale of land could not be completed.

However, Justice A. S. Gadkari took note of the fact that More was a police constable. “The record clearly indicates the role played by the applicant and his apparent complicity in the present crime and therefore this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve to be protected by pre-arrest bail.”