Mumbai sessions court grants anticipatory bail to builder Sumit Jain in lalbaug redevelopment fraud case

MUMBAI: Mumbai Sessions Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to a builder Sumit Jain in an alleged fraud case related to Lalbaug Redevelopment Project, citing Civil Dispute AngleSpecial Judge VD Kedar granted anticipatory bail to Jain, 46, a majority partner in Poonam Infra, in an FIR registered by a beautician with DB Marg Police Station, in connection with two 21st-floor flats she and her husband booked in 2011, at his project in Lalbaug in Mumbai for Rs 1.7 crore.The case involved serious allegations that Jain, along with his associated firm, induced the complainant to invest in flats in the Poonam Pinaki project at Lalbaug and received Rs 1.40 crore, including Rs 95 lakh through bank transfers and an alleged Rs 45 lakh in cash, without executing a registered agreement or returning the money.Jain’s counsel Satyam Nimalkar argued that it was a civil dispute wrongly given a criminal colour.The prosecutor Siroya and informant’s lawyer AK Singh argued that the matter was not a routine property dispute but a grave economic offence, claiming that Jain had misused trust, misappropriated funds, and had a history of similar complaints involving numerous flat purchasers. The informant also argued that Jain is “a habitual offender and has cheated numerous flat purchasers to the tune of over Rs 200 crores,’’ the court order recorded.

But, Nimbalkar argued that due to inaction and actions of a partner, the “project came to a standstill and was ultimately taken over by MHADA.’’ He said MHADA had invited claims from buyers but the informant failed to approach MHADA for redressal of her grievance. Besides, due to “multiple civil and criminal disputes between the applicant’s firm and M/s R. B. Builders, the project could not be completed. It is thus contended that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the applicant at the inception,’’ Nimbalkar argued.The court observed, “Thus, from the aforesaid material, it prima facie appears that due to inter-se disputes between the applicant’s firm and M/s R. B. Builders, the project could not be completed.’’"From the overall material, the dispute appears to be predominantly of a civil nature. Mere registration of other criminal cases against the applicant would not, by itself, disentitle him from seeking relief in the present matter, particularly when he has been granted bail in those cases, and has also made out prima facie case in this matter,'' the court ruled.The court also noted that the FIR was lodged in Feb 2026 with no satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the report.The court said Jain was on ad-interim relief since April 9 and had not misused the pre-arrest bail conditions; hence, it confirmed his anticipatory bail.