Bombay High Court

KHUSHAL SINGH S/O HARI SINGHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: Rejected
Bench: N R BORKAR

Holding

The court denied anticipatory bail, finding sufficient grounds to suspect the applicant's involvement in the alleged fraud.

Summary

The Bombay High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Khushal Singh, who feared arrest in a fraud case (Crime No.432 of 2025) involving alleged inducement of investors into a forex scheme and a loss of Rs.1 crore. The prosecution alleged that Singh, along with co‑accused, induced investors and was the beneficiary of the defrauded amount, also linking him to eleven similar offences. Singh contended that the main allegations were against a co‑accused, that he had executed no promissory notes, and that he was willing to cooperate with investigators, arguing that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State and the first informant countered that specific inducement allegations targeted Singh and that his involvement in multiple crimes warranted denial of bail. After reviewing the FIR and witness statements, the court found sufficient specific allegations and the applicant’s alleged role as a beneficiary, concluding that anticipatory bail could not be granted, and thus rejected the application, also disposing of the interim application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite specific allegations of inducement and involvement in multiple similar offences.
Whether the applicant's willingness to cooperate and the claim that custodial interrogation is unnecessary affect the bail decision.
Whether the presence of specific allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita justifies denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5), 61(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
fraud
forex trading
inducement
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
bail denial

Judgment

                                                            [email protected]


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
        ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2785 OF 2025

Khushal Singh s/o. Hari Singh                            …Applicant
     V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                 ...Respondent.
                                WITH
           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4779 OF 2025
                               …………..
Mr. Satyavrat Joshi (through VC) a/w. Mr. Nitin Pai i/b Ms Shivani
Sunil Kondekar for the Applicants in ABAs.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent/State.
Ms Dhara Shah (through VC) i/b Mr. Satish J. Agarwal for the
Intervener/first informant in both IAs.
PI Manoj Patil, Malad Police Station is present.
                              …………..
                             CORAM :         N.R. BORKAR, J.
                             DATE       :    08.01.2026.
P.C. :

1.       This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2.       The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.432 of
2025 registered at Malad Police Station for the offence punishable
under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.        It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant
and other co-accused had induced the first informant and other
investors to invest money in forex trading by assuring them good
returns and defrauded them to the tune of Rs.1 crore.

4.       I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant
the learned APP for the respondent No.1/State and the learned


Dinesh S. Sherla                        1/2
                                                                [email protected]


counsel for the intervener/first informant.

5.       Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main
allegations are against the co-accused Dinesh Singh and not the
present applicant. It is submitted that even promissory notes were
executed by the co-accused Dinesh Singh. It is submitted that
there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is
ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.

6.       On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent
No.1/State and the learned counsel for the first informant submits
that the amount was handed over to the present applicant. It is
submitted that there are specific allegation of inducement against
the present applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is involved
in 11 more crimes of similar nature. It is thus submitted that the
applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

7.       I    have   perused    the   first     information   report    and     the
statements of witnesses. There are specific allegations against the
present applicant in relation to the inducement. The present
applicant appears to be the beneficiary of the defrauded amount.
Considering the said fact and as the applicant is involved in 11
more crimes of similar nature, I am not inclined to release the
applicant on anticipatory bail. Hence, the Application is rejected.

8.           The Interim Application stands disposed of.



                                                      [N.R.BORKAR, J.]


Dinesh S. Sherla                              2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…