The Fast Track Additional Sessions Court in Mapusa has rejected the anticipatory bail application of Tarak Manguesh Arolkar, a Mapusa Municipal Councillor and real estate developer, in connection with an alleged land fraud case registered by the Mapusa Police Station.
Mapusa police registered an FIR against Arolkar on September 11, 2026, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating. According to the complainant, in October 2022 Arolkar induced his mother to purchase a 51,560-square-metre property at Torxem village in Pernem taluka.
Relying on the developer’s representations, the woman signed two Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) on October 4, 2022. The prosecution states that she paid a total of ₹41.85 lakh—₹30,85,750 through bank transfers and ₹11 lakh in cash. The complainant alleged that after his mother was diagnosed with cancer and urgently needed funds to travel to Australia for medical treatment, she approached Arolkar to cancel the agreement and obtain a refund.
However, Arolkar repaid only ₹8.5 lakh in July 2026 via RTGS and failed to refund the balance or execute the final sale documents, thereby causing wrongful loss to the victim. Seeking anticipatory bail, the defence counsel argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, arising from a commercial transaction that had been wrongly given a criminal colour. The defence contended that there was no dishonest intention from the outset, citing the partial refund of ₹8.5 lakh as proof of bona fide conduct.
It was also submitted that the buyer was aware that statutory sub-division approvals were pending and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Opposing the plea, the prosecution submitted that Arolkar had induced the victim from the beginning by executing agreements for specific plots that were never legally partitioned or approved by the competent authorities. The state noted that the MOUs remained unregistered and lacked legal sanctity.
The prosecution further emphasised that Arolkar has several past criminal antecedents and that his custodial interrogation was essential to trace the flow of funds, seize original documents, and verify the title rights to the property. Rejecting Arolkar’s anticipatory bail application, the court observed that the case prima facie satisfied the essential ingredients of cheating under the law.
The court noted that while the MOUs claimed the property had been sub-divided, the attached plans were merely unapproved sketches, and the property had never been partitioned by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). Addressing the defence’s argument that the matter was a civil dispute, the court held that while civil remedies may exist, an aggrieved party is not barred from pursuing criminal remedies where fraudulent inducement exists from the very inception of the transaction. The court also distinguished this case from other precedents, noting that Arolkar had refunded only a fraction of the consideration. Highlighting the applicant’s existing criminal antecedents—including pending cheating and forgery cases registered with the Goa Crime Branch and Bengaluru’s Sadashiv Nagar Police Station—the court ruled that he was not entitled to discretionary pre-arrest relief and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
