: Additional sessions judge K D Vadane on Thursday rejected the bail pleas of Mumbai businessman
Sayyad Mohammad Masood Jamadar
and his aide Sajid Ibrahim Varekar in the case of a
housing project in Hinjewadi
that came up on a 0.83 hectare plot of land that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had attached in 2013 in a money laundering case.
The judge also rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Pravin Ramchandra Gurav, director of Hindavi Swarajya, a company formed by about 100 IT professionals to execute the Scrum Utkarsh cooperative housing project on the attached land.
Masood, who is facing a money-laundering probe by the ED, had secured development rights of the land but, post-attachment in July 2013, sold it to Sahil Realtors, a partnership firm which, in turn, sold the land to Hindavi Swarajya.
Masood had registered a power of attorney in Noida, authorizing Varekar to deal with the land transaction. Two revenue officials from Sub-Registrar Mulshi-2 and Sub-Registrar, Paud, Mulshi-2 are also facing action for registering the sale transactions for pecuniary gains.
Both, Masood and Varekar, along with an accused estate agent Guddu Shaikh, are lodged in the Yerawada central jail ever since their arrests between December 3 and 6, 2018. Gurav had moved the court for an anticipatory bail. “We will soon arrest Gurav,” said ACP Shridar Jadhav of Pimpri Chinchwad police’s Wakad division.
Additional public prosecutor Premkumar Agarwal had argued that Gurav had full knowledge about the ED’s action of attaching the land yet he proceeded with the land transfer transaction and went on the execute 89 sale deeds relating to flats in the project.
The police’s report opposing pre-arrest bail for Gurav stated that he and his aides entered into land deals at Punavale, Ravet and Hinjewadi through Scrum Utkarsh Ventures.
Gurav had only shown the Hinjewadi to a few known people and managed other members citing the property’s prime location, the report said.
The report added that Gurav knew about the ED’s action in July 2014 when the ED had issued him summons and had sought his bank details and other information.