Dismissed¶24

Anthony Francis Dais v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026IA/3623/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (N.R. Borkar, J.), Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1141 of 2025 with Interim Application No. 3623 of 2025, decided 06.01.2026 — Vinod G. Dcosta v. The State of Maharashtra. Anticipatory bail refused in Crime No. 499 of 2024, Byculla Police Station, S. 420 IPC (cheating): alleged stock market and forex trading investment fraud of Rs.1,74,80,000/- involving 23 investors; rejection grounded on the applicant's failure to place on record any document showing investment of the investors' amounts; interim application disposed of; API Santosh Munde (Byculla Police Station) present.

What did the court decide?

The applicant failed to place on record a single document to show that he invested the investors' amounts in stock market and forex trading. ¶24

Anthony Francis Dais vs State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

[email protected]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1141 OF 2025

Vinod G. Dcosta

…Applicant

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra

¶7

...Respondent.

¶8

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3623 OF 2025

¶9

Mr. Arvind Tiwari for the Applicant.

¶10

Mr. B.V. Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr. Shekhar Jagtap i/b Mr. Tanmay Tendulkar for the Intervener in IA.

¶11

API Santosh Munde, Byculla Police Station is present.

¶12

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 06.01.2026.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶15

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 499 of 2024 registered at Byculla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶16

According to the prosecution, the applicant and other coaccused induced the first informant, his relatives and other investors to invest money in stock market and forex trading by assuring them of profitable returns on their investment. It is alleged that the first informant and other investors transferred amount of Rs.1,74,80,000/- to the applicant’s bank account. It is further alleged that the applicant neither returned the invested amounts nor provided the assured benefits to the first informant

1/2

Dinesh S. Sherla

and the other investors. The allegations against the applicant and other co-accused are thus of defrauding the first informant and other investors to the tune of Rs.1,74,80,000/-.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned APP for the respondent / State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/intervenor.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that certain amount was repaid to the investors and thus it cannot be said that since inception the intention of the applicant was to cheat the first informant and other investors. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.

¶23

On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submit that there are in all 23 investors and that no amount has been repaid to them. It is submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶24

The applicant has not placed on record a single document to show that he invested the amount of investors in stock market and forex trading. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. The Application is therefore, rejected.

¶25

The Interim Application stands disposed of.

¶26

2/2

¶27

Dinesh S. Sherla

Anthony Francis Dais v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthony Francis Dais v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hemant Raghunath Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra

Kulsum W/O Faiyaz Khan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Pooja Dilip Seth vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Gabrial Dcosta vs State of Maharashtra

Sandip Krishna Kambale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parshuram Yallappa Kakshagiri vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.