Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 27th August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Mr. Shivaji Kisan Jadhav, 59 years, Business occupation, residing at F‑41, Prakash Housing Society, Thergaon, Kalewadi Phata, Pimpri, Pune. Respondents – State of Goa (through the Public Prosecutor) and the Police Inspector, Economic Offence Wing, North Goa.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Anticipatory bail application (Criminal Application No.24 of 2026) seeking pre‑arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 8/2025 registered on 23‑Oct‑2025.
  • Allegations: Accused companies – Soil Properties and Infra India Limited and Soil Properties and Estate India Limited (registered in Pune) – allegedly, through their Chairman, Directors, Executives and Branch Managers, induced investors in Goa between 2014‑2019 to invest in fraudulent Recurring Deposit (RD) and Fixed Deposit (FD) schemes, promising exorbitant returns. The informant, Mr. Isaac D'Souza, and numerous other investors invested large sums at the Goa branch; the accused later misappropriated the funds for personal benefit and fled, cheating investors of approximately Rs 7,00,00,000.
  • Statutory Provisions: Offences under IPC Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B read with Section 34, and Sections 3 and 5 of the Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999.
  • Prior Proceedings: The applicant had earlier filed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 82/2026 before the Sessions Court, North Goa, which was rejected on 22‑May‑2026 on the ground that his physical presence was required for interrogation.
  • Applicant’s Contentions: Counsel Mr. Adwait Bhonde argued that the present FIR (Crime 8/2025) duplicates earlier FIRs – Crime 317/2025 (Pimpri Police Station, Pune) and Crime 5/2025 (Goa Police Station). He claimed the three FIRs arise from the same transaction, that the present FIR is illegal, and cited Supreme Court judgment in T. T. Antony v. State of Kerala.
  • Respondent’s Counter‑Arguments: Additional Government Advocate Mr. Pravin Faldessai contended that Crime 317/2025 relates to investments in Hariom Multistate Co‑operative Credit Society Limited, where the applicant is a Director, whereas the present case concerns the two companies where he is Chairman. Hence, the offences are distinct and require separate investigations.
  • Court’s Legal Analysis:

1. Reiterated the principle from T. T. Antony that an FIR is the first information of a cognizable offence; subsequent information cannot be recorded as a new FIR but falls under Section 162 Cr.P.C.

2. Observed that while the modus operandi appears similar, it is premature to conclude that the two FIRs are identical in pitch and substance; a thorough investigation is required.

3. Emphasised the statutory right of police to investigate cognizable offences without prior judicial authorisation, and that if later investigation finds the offences identical, the police may seek to file an additional charge‑sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

4. Noted the seriousness of the alleged economic offence, the large quantum of Rs 7 crore, and the large number of victims, warranting custodial interrogation of the applicant to ascertain the money trail.

Final Outcome

  • The Court found no merit in the anticipatory bail application and rejected the bail request.

Topics: Anticipatory Bail, Financial Fraud