The High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of 59-year-old businessman Shivaji Kisan Jadhav, chairman of two Pune-based real estate firms, in connection with an alleged ₹7 crore investment scam that defrauded multiple depositors across Goa. The Court observed that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to trace the money trail and to ascertain the complete modus operandi behind the large-scale economic offence.

The case arises from an FIR registered on October 23, 2025, by the Goa Economic Offences Cell for alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complaint, filed by Isaac D’Souza on behalf of several investors, alleges that Pune-headquartered firms Soil Properties and Infra India Limited and Soil Properties and Estate India Limited induced victims between 2014 and 2019 to deposit funds in fraudulent Recurring Deposit (RD) and Fixed Deposit (FD) schemes with promises of exorbitant returns.

According to the prosecution, the collected funds were subsequently misappropriated for personal use, and the accused absconded without returning the principal or the promised interest, allegedly defrauding investors of approximately ₹7 crore.

Jadhav’s defence advocate contended that the FIR was an impermissible “second FIR” in respect of the same underlying transaction registered at the Pimpri Police Station in Pune, where the applicant had already obtained bail.

Opposing the plea, Additional Government Advocate Pravin Faldessai submitted that the Pimpri FIR related to funds placed in the Hariom Multistate Co-operative Credit Society Limited, where Jadhav was a director, whereas the Goa case concerns deposits taken through Soil Properties and Infra India Limited and Soil Properties and Estate India Limited, where he served as chairman. The State maintained that, while the modus operandi may appear similar, the entities, schemes and transactions constitute distinct offences requiring independent investigation.

The High Court noted that, although the method of inducement appears comparable, the two FIRs prima facie involve different corporate entities and distinct transactions. The Court emphasised that the police have the statutory authority to investigate cognizable offences and that it is too early to conclude that the substance of both cases is identical.

“The contents of the present FIR are prima facie sufficient to make out a case of a serious economic offence involving a large amount of ₹7,00,00,000/- and a substantial number of victims,” the High Court observed, noting that the applicant’s custodial presence is essential for the probe.