Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 22 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Kajal Tejas Chudasama (accused No.8); Respondent – State of Goa and others. The case is Criminal Application (Bail) No.38 of 2026.
  • Charges: Offences punishable under IPC Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (dishonest misappropriation), 420 (cheating), 120‑B (criminal conspiracy) and under the Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 – Sections 3 and 5.
  • Background: Investigation initiated on information from Mr. Venan B. Dias. It was alleged that prior to December 2024, Bio Estate Solutions Private Limited began operations from an office in Mapusa, Goa. Directors of the company allegedly induced investors to invest in schemes titled “Land purchase”, “Pension Scheme”, “Biokkin” and “COW Coin” under the umbrella of “Cinema on Web (B‑2)”. The company was not registered as an NBFC with the RBI, yet accepted public investments and later duped investors.
  • Investigation Findings: Charge‑sheet No.1/2026 dated 17 March 2026 filed in Sessions Court, Goa; Special Case No.1/2026 registered. Applicant listed as accused No.8 and marked as absconding. A joint account in the name of “Cinema on Web” was found, held by applicant and accused No.1, Shri Shivaji Wakale. Account statements show transactions amounting to Rs 15 crore during July 2021 to July 2024, with large sums directed towards the COW Coin scheme.
  • Procedural History: Applicant earlier sought pre‑arrest bail before the Special Court (ABA No.24/2026); bail was rejected on 25 February 2026. Current application filed before this Court.
  • Contentions: Applicant’s counsel, Mr. Veerdhawal Deshmukh, argued that the applicant was falsely implicated, never visited Goa, did not sign any agreement, and derived no benefit. He highlighted the applicant’s minor daughter and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation. The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Nikhil Vaze, countered that the applicant is a partner in COW Coin, the joint account shows substantial money trail, and custodial interrogation is essential. He cited Supreme Court judgment in Balmukund Singh Gautam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026) 6 SCC 216.
  • Court’s Observations: The Court noted that despite the applicant’s claim of being unconcerned with Bio Estate Solutions, the investment schemes, including Cinema on Web (B‑2), were used to divert funds. The joint account and Rs 15 crore transactions indicate the applicant’s involvement as a partner in COW Coin. The applicant failed to cooperate with the investigation, ignoring a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the applicant’s non‑cooperation and absconding status preclude the grant of pre‑arrest bail. The bail application is dismissed as being without merit.

Topics: Legal Bail Decision, Financial Fraud