The High Court has granted bail to 41-year-old Porvorim resident Ashutosh Atchut Naik in connection with an alleged multi-crore investment scam, observing that he prima facie appears to be an investor and victim of the fraud rather than a conspirator.

The High Court, in its order, has observed that the prosecution’s own response reflected uncertainty over whether Naik acted as an accomplice or was himself duped in the scheme. The court noted that Naik had been behind bars since August 6, 2026, had already undergone 14 days of police custody interrogation, and had no criminal antecedents.

​According to the FIR registered by the Goa Economic Offence Cell, the complainant alleged that the operators of entities including Botbro, Botalpha, and OFX Trade Ltd. hatched a criminal conspiracy to lure public investments between 2018 and 2025 with assurances of professional asset management and guaranteed returns on principal capital. While regular payouts were credited until early 2025, funds and interest distributions were abruptly halted in February 2025, following which investors' capital was siphoned off. The EOC subsequently booked the accused under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act and the Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors Act.

​Appearing for Naik, Senior Advocate Nitin Sardessai argued that his client was among the earliest whistleblowers to expose the syndicate. Naik had lodged formal complaints on March 9 and April 8, 2026, against the alleged masterminds—identified as Lavish Choudhary alias Nawaab Ali, Brajesh Kumar, and Sanjeev Kumar—and had actively assisted investigators by handing over corporate bank transaction records.

While the Sessions Court had earlier rejected Naik's bail on grounds that he attended sponsored promotional events and was apprehended while attempting to leave the country, the defence maintained that Naik had no organizational nexus with the entities and had merely invested his own funds and introduced friends and family.

​Addressing the circumstances of Naik's arrest, the High Court noted that his family resides abroad and that he had returned to India even after the registration of the FIR, remaining unaware that a lookout circular had been issued against him. The High Court remarked that further pre-trial detention was unwarranted and that the interests of the investigation could be safeguarded through stringent conditions.

​Naik was ordered to be released on a personal bail bond of Rs 1,00,000 with one or two local sureties of equal value.