SHIVAJI KISAN JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF GOA THR THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR

2026:BHC-GOA:1730
                                           (1)                      crmab-24-2026.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
                                    NO.24 OF 2026
               Mr. Shivaji Kisan Jadhav
               Age: 59 years, Occupation: Business,
               R/o: F-41, Prakash Housing Society,
               Thergaon, Kalewadi Phata,
               Pimpri, Pune.                                   ..Applicant
                           Versus
               1.    State of Goa,
                     Through, The Public Prosecutor,
                     High Court of Bombay at Goa,
                     Porvorim, Goa.
               2.    The Police Inspector,
                     Through Economic Offence Wing Police Station
                     North Goa, Goa.                          .Respondents
                                                …
               Mr. Adwait Bhonde with Mr. R. L. Mate with Mr. Shrinath Mate with
               Mr. Rohan Desai with Mr. Ashay Priolkar, Advocates for Applicant.
               Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Addional Government Advocate for Respondent
               Nos.1 and 2.
                                               …
                                          CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                          DATED : 27th AUGUST, 2026.
               ORDER:-

               1.    The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

               8/2025 dated 23.10.2025 registered with Economic Offence Wing

               Police Station, North Goa for offences punishable under Sections 420,

               406, 409, 120B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as Sections

               3 and 5 of Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors (Financial

               Establishment) Act, 1999.


               2.    The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information

               given by Mr. Isaac D'Souza alleging that accused companies, namely
                             (2)                       crmab-24-2026.odt



Soil Properties and Infra India Limited and Soil Properties and Estate

India Limited having their registered offices in Pune, Maharashtra,

through their Chairman, Directors, Executives and Branch Managers,

dishonestly induced informant and several other investors in Goa during

period from 2014 to 2019 to invest in fraudulent Recurring Deposits

(RD) and Fixed Deposit (FD) schemes floated by said companies by

promising exorbitant returns and giving false assurances. Believing

representations, informant and numerous investors invested large sums

of money at Goa Branch of companies.               Accused thereafter

misappropriated funds for personal benefits and fled away without

repaying principal amount and promise returns to the informant and

other investors, thereby cheated them to the tune of approximately

Rs.7,00,00,000/-.


3.    The aforesaid information culminated into registration of FIR

bearing Crime No.8/2025 against accused companies, Directors,

Executives and Branch Manager. The applicant is named as Chairman

of those companies, therefore, applicant moved application for pre-

arrest bail before Sessions Court at North Goa vide Anticipatory Bail

Application No.82/2026, which came to be rejected on 22.5.2026,

observing that there are serious allegations against applicant and

applicant's physical presence is necessary for interrogation to complete
                               (3)                         crmab-24-2026.odt



investigation, so as to identify actual amount embezzled and trace

money trail.


4.    Mr. Adwait Bhonde, learned advocate appearing for applicant

would submit that applicant has been falsely involved in multiple crimes

registered in Maharashtra and Goa. The Crime No.317/2025 registered

with Police Station Pimpri as well as Crime No.8/2025 registered with

Economic Offence Wing, North Goa pertains to one and same

transaction. In three FIRs registered at instance of investors from Goa

and Maharashtra on same cause of action with Pimpri Police Station,

Pune, applicant/accused is already enlarged on bail. The properties of

accused are already seized. In Crime No.5/2025 registered with Police

Station Goa, applicant was taken into custody on 22.01.2026, after 5

months and 17 days of registration of offence. The offence under Crime

No.317/2025 registered with Police Station Pimpri and present crime is

based on one and same transaction. Although in present case complaint

is lodged on 23.10.2025, for last 7 months Police Station Officer did not

bother to take custody of present applicant for investigation purpose.

He was taken in custody in FIR No.5/2025. He would submit that for

same transaction there could not have been two FIRs, however,

intentionally multiple FIRs are registered against applicant.                  The

registration of present FIR itself is illegal. In support of his contentions,
                                  (4)                   crmab-24-2026.odt



he relies upon observations of Supreme Court in case of T. T. Antony

Vs. State of Kerala and Others1.


5.       Per contra, Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Government

Advocate would submit that Crime No.317/2025 registered with Police

Station Pimpri was in relation to investments made in Hariom

Multistate Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Chinchwad, Pune. The

applicant is one of the Director of said Credit Society, whereas in

present case offence is primarily registered against Companies namely

Soil Properties and Infra India Limited and Soil Properties and Estate

India Limited.           The applicant is Chairman of those Companies.

Therefore, contention of applicant that both offences are for one and

same transaction cannot be accepted. He would submit that applicant

extracted money from investors in State of Maharashtra and Goa under

different schemes, heads and names, although modus operandi is

similar, offences are different requiring independent investigation and

filing of charge-sheet.


6.       Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates

appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that present bail

application pre-dominently takes exception to very registration of FIR

in Crime No.8/2025 on the ground that every subsequent information in

respect of same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to

one or more cognizable offence need not be culminated into registration
1    (2001) 6 SCC 181.
                              (5)                         crmab-24-2026.odt



of FIR and there can be no second FIR or fresh investigation on basis of

such subsequent information.        In support of aforesaid contentions,

reliance is placed on observations of Supreme Court in case of T. T.

Antony (supra) wherein it has been observed that FIR means earliest

and first information of cognizable offence recorded by an officer in

charge of police station. It sets criminal law into motion and marks

commencement of investigation which ends up with formation of

opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C. All other information made

orally or in writing after commencement of investigation into

cognizable offence, disclosed from facts mentioned in First Information

Report, will be statements falling under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and no

such information or statement can be be treated as FIR and entered in

the station house diary, again as it would be in effect be a second FIR

and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.P.C.


7.    In light of aforesaid proposition of law, if facts of the present case

are considered, it is evident that present FIR pertains to investments

made by informant and others in companies namely Soil Properties and

Infra India Limited and Soil Properties and Estate India Limited. The

prime accused are companies and its office bearers. The applicant is

Chairman of those companies. So far as Crime No.317/2025 registered

with Pimpri Police Station, Pune, prima facie, it suggests offence

pertaining to investments made by informant in that crime in Hariom
                              (6)                       crmab-24-2026.odt



Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Chinchwad, of which

applicant is a Director. It is true that, mode and manner of inducement

and siphoning of funds may be same and FIR also makes cursory

reference of investment in Soil Properties, however, at this stage it

would be difficult to draw inference that it relates to one and same

transaction. The thorough investigation would be required to find out if

gravamen of charge in both FIRs is in pitch and substance are same and

fresh investigation and forwarding of the report would not be necessary.


8.    It is trite that, there is statutory right on part of police to

investigate circumstance of alleged cognizable crime without requiring

authorization from Judicial Authorities. Plenary power of police to

investigate cognizable offence may not be unlimited, however, police

should have authority to undertake an investigation if cognizable

offence is made out. It is possible that, on further investigation, police

may reach to conclusion that pitch and substance of previously

registered offence is same in subsequent offence under their

investigation. In that case, police may seek leave to file additional

charge-sheet in earlier matter treating their investigation under Section

173(8) of Cr.P.C. However, at this preliminary stage, particularly while

considering application for pre-arrest bail, applicant's contention cannot

be accepted.
                               (7)                      crmab-24-2026.odt



9.       The contents of present FIR are, prima facie, sufficient to make

out case of serious economic offence involving huge amount of

Rs.7,00,00,000/- and large number of victims. The applicant being

Chairman of accused Companies, his custodial interrogation would be

necessary to find out modus operandi and money trail.


10.      In result, this court finds no merit in application. Hence

application stands rejected.


                                         (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                  JUDGE
Devendra/August-2026